Louis delivered his budget cut on Moving Singapore towards a Car-lite City at Committee of Supply 2016.

Louis: Next, Madam, as a small country with limited land, the Government is rightly continuing our expansion of affordable and reliable public transportation. For example, by 2030, Singapore's MRT network will increase from 178km to 360km.

However, beyond public transportation, I hope we can also focus on expanding our cycling track network in our efforts of becoming a car-lite city.

In addition, how can we better support the use of bicycles for transportation between homes and MRT stations or bus interchanges, and between MRT stations or bus interchanges to work places? Will the Ministry consider the setting up of more bicycle rental stations near homes, MRT stations or bus interchanges and at various work places?

Mr Lawrence Wong (The Minister for National Development): Several Members, including Ms Cheryl Chan, Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Darryl David and Mr Louis Ng spoke about this, and I fully share their views.

I am also glad that Mr Saktiandi Supaat shared the example of the Novena Health City. I think this is one area which we have planned for a comprehensive coverage of underground pedestrian links, street-level walkways and elevated link-bridges. It is a good example of what we are striving to achieve. Indeed, we have similar plans for other areas too – in the CBD, in Jurong Lake District and in all our regional centres.

To further bolster these efforts, LTA and URA will be introducing a new requirement for developers. This new requirement will make sure that developers incorporate the needs of pedestrians and cyclists upfront in their development plans. For example, developers will have to review the locations of the vehicular access points to minimise conflict with pedestrians and cyclists, taking into account key pedestrian and cyclist access routes, and the location of bicycle parking facilities. This is especially critical for developments with high footfall like our schools, shopping malls, office buildings and business parks. Through these requirements, we will ensure that our built environment is more conducive for pedestrians and cyclists

Besides new developments, I agree with Mr Ang Wei Neng that we need to do more for greater connectivity in existing buildings. In fact, I am not sure if Mr Ang heard this earlier, because we had a debate when Dr Tan Wu Meng moved an adjournment motion on this. I had shared earlier in the House that we are studying and reviewing legislation to allow us to mandate existing developments to receive new elevated and underground links. Once this is in place, we plan to get more pedestrian connections along Orchard Road and other areas as well.

What do we hope to achieve with all of these changes? How can be we a better, more attractive city for walking and cycling? Let me paint a picture of what we can see in the future. First, within every HDB estate, we will have more dedicated paths for active mobility, be it walking, jogging, cycling or the use of other personal mobility devices. This will enhance our first-mile/last-mile connectivity to MRT stations. Our newer housing areas, such as Bidadari, Punggol and Tampines North, are already designed with these paths. For existing towns, we will progressively improve the infrastructure through our upgrading programmes.

Here is one example in Bedok Town, which I will show on the slide, where a comprehensive cycling and walking network of approximately 14 km will be completed next year. This will allow better connectivity to MRT stations, major employment areas, parks, schools as well as the Neighbourhood Centres. Intra-HDB towns, new ones, we will do it upfront; existing ones, we will do so through upgrading progressively. We will have a very well connected route of dedicated walking, cycling paths within each HDB town.

Next, we will also have active mobility routes that connect our residential towns to our city centre. This will enable people to get to their workplaces without having to drive. For a start, we are looking at towns that are within a 30-minute cycling distance to the city; so we have identified six possible routes to the city, as shown in the map [A slide was shown to hon Members].

These cover connections from towns and estates in various regions: from the east such as Geylang and Marine Parade; northeast such as Hougang and Macpherson, and the west such as Queenstown and Bukit Merah. These routes are largely already in place today. These are not new routes because they are largely in place today through our Park Connectors. If you actually travel through one of these routes or take a cycling ride through one of these routes, you will realise that they are not fully seamless, and there are some gaps along the way. We intend to plug these gaps, so that the routes can be seamless and they can better connect our HDB towns to the city centre.

I give an example of the Bishan to City route which runs along the Kallang River. Today, if you take that route, as a cyclist or jogger, you will have to traverse several pedestrian overhead bridges and underpasses, and the biggest obstacle is that you have to cross the PIE. So, it is very difficult if you want to cycle down that route to the city. You have to dismount, go up the pedestrian overhead bridge, underpass, and then you have to find some way to get round the PIE.

URA has initiated a consultancy study to look at possible solutions to bridge these gaps. So, this is just one possibility of how something can be done to bridge the gap. [A slide was shown to hon Members] This is across Serangoon Road, a potential bridge that you can cycle through Serangoon Road. So, if we are able to smoothen out these different kinks in the route, say, with potential links like this, then residents staying in Bishan, Bidadari, Toa Payoh would have a more direct and seamless travelling experience, whether it is through walking, cycling or any other personal mobility device, from their HDB towns to the city centre. This is an example, conceptually, of what we are looking at, how we can enhance connections from HDB towns to the city centre.

We will also look at active mobility routes within the city centre itself. And here we can have potential for wider pedestrian sidewalks and dedicated cycling and walking paths as well. These will connect to the major office developments. Some of these pathways in Marina Bay have already been implemented and we will continue to do more in other parts of the CBD.

These are some of our ideas and plans to make Singapore a more attractive city for walking, cycling and active mobility. URA will hold a major exhibition later this year. They will seek the public's views on these different active mobility routes and the types of enhancements needed to make them more useful.

The infrastructure is important, but we must certainly go beyond infrastructure planning to embrace a car-lite mindset. I think Miss Cheryl Chan spoke about this and highlighted the need for more basic awareness and education. I fully agree with her. MOT will be sharing more about this in its COS later.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will implement a national emissions trading scheme as an instrument for Singapore to meet its COP21 commitments.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): Climate change is a global problem with wide-ranging implications. Many countries around the world today are already feeling the effects whether it is record high temperatures, more intense rainfalls or the threat that rising sea levels bring to coastal cities. Although Singapore only contributes less than 0.2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, we are a responsible global citizen and will play our part.

Given this, Singapore had pledged at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% below 2005 levels by 2030 and to stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. These are ambitious targets which the Government alone cannot achieve. We would require the collective effort and action of every individual, communities and businesses to make greener lifestyle choices and reduce their energy consumption.

Members would be aware that the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, recently released a Climate Action Plan that explains the Whole-of-Government strategy we have adopted to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and to protect Singapore from the impacts of climate change. Improving our energy efficiency continues to be a key strategy.

Specifically, the Member has asked whether a national emissions trading scheme will be implemented as part of this strategy. In recent years, many countries around the world have implemented various carbon pricing instruments, including emissions trading schemes, to help in their climate change efforts. For example, the Republic of Korea launched its emissions trading scheme in 2015. China, which has seven regional pilots, has also announced its intention to introduce a national cap-and-trade system in 2017.

In Singapore, the Government has not made any decision on carbon pricing, including emissions trading schemes.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for National Development whether BCA will consider setting the criteria of thermal comfort as a pre-requisite requirement for air-conditioned spaces in all new and existing non-residential buildings including commercial, industrial and institutional buildings as part of its Green Mark Award certification schemes.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MND): The Green Mark certification scheme was launched in 2005 to shape a greener and more sustainable built environment. The scheme allows developers to evaluate and benchmark their buildings to established environmental performance standards. There are both pre-requisite and voluntary criteria in the certification process.

Under the revised Green Mark certification scheme of 2015, designing for thermal comfort is now a pre-requisite for certification for all new non-residential buildings. This includes commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings. The specifications for thermal comfort are based on the Singapore Standards on air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation in buildings.

Thermal comfort is currently a voluntary criterion for existing non-residential buildings applying for Green Mark certification today. BCA is reviewing the scheme and will consult industry stakeholders for their views.

Ultimately, how comfortable the indoor environment is depends on how the building is operated. We encourage building owners and managers to be responsive to the needs of their tenants and dwellers.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry (Trade) (a) how will the substantial emissions from the new coal gasification plant on Jurong Island align with our climate change commitments and our declaration of Year of Climate Action; and (b) how does the Government decide on business opportunities versus environmental concerns and international commitments. 

Mr Lim Hng Kiang (MTI, Trade): Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Paris Agreement, Singapore has pledged to reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and to stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around the same time. A lower emissions intensity means that each dollar of GDP will be achieved more efficiently and with a lower impact to the environment.

Under the Jurong Island Version 2.0 initiative, Singapore explored alternative feedstock options to enhance the long term competitiveness of the energy and chemicals sector, while keeping to our climate change commitments and ensuring environmental concerns were addressed. After extensive evaluation, gasification was assessed to best meet industry's demand for competitive hydrogen and carbon monoxide as feedstock. To minimise the impact on the environment, MEWR has worked together with the Economic Development Board and the plant operator to put in place strict regulations and standards on emissions of carbon dioxide and air pollutants, as well as to deploy best-in-class mitigation technologies. The plant's emissions will also be closely monitored to minimise the impact on the environment, and the plant will be subject to the carbon tax that was announced in Budget 2017.

With 2018 designated as the Year of Climate Action, the Government will increase efforts to raise awareness, and increase involvement of companies and individuals on the necessity and the benefits of taking action to achieve sustainable growth and move towards a low-carbon future. 

Louis: I thank the Minister for the reply. I have two supplementary questions. One is – how will the substantive amount of ash be disposed of, specifically the fly ash, as this is known to be hazardous. Second, which is important – how do we reconcile the different message we are sending to the public now? On one hand, we are saying it is a Year of Climate Action to reduce our carbon footprint, but on the other hand, we are opening up this coal gasification plant which will increase our carbon footprint. 

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: In granting the licence to the operator, MEWR has set very strict conditions on the disposal of the ash, in particular, that it will not add to the dumping requirements that we have. The company will meet those regulations.

On reconciling the two, I think this is a delicate balance that we have to try to achieve. On the one hand, we have a fairly thriving chemicals and energy sector, contributing 1.8% of our GDP, employing more than 25,000 workers; all with very good jobs. We have to maintain the competitiveness of that sector and for that, we need competitive feedstock – hydrogen and carbon monoxide. We have explored the different ways of introducing that feedstock and gasification appears to be the most sensible approach.

At the same time, we have made very strong commitments on the Paris Agreement and the Singapore Government intends to meet those commitments. So, in balancing the two, we have reached an agreement with the operator on the regulations that they have to meet, both in carbon dioxide emissions as well as in other standards. And they have agreed to deploy best-in-class technologies.

Louis: Could I check where would the ash be disposed of? The second question is whether we considered renewable energy instead. Minister Ong has replied to the earlier PQ about how that is a growing sector and whether MTI will consider that instead of this coal gasification plant. 

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: The company has made commitments to recycle the ash, and as for renewable energy, the gasification project is not an energy project, it is not a genco. It is to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide, or essentially carbon. Because as feedstock to the petrol-chemical sector, you need more C and more H2. And to do that you need to convert coal into hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Because we are not adding on to refineries in Singapore, we have 1.3 million barrels of refining capacity and that has not changed for many decades, so we need additional feedstock from other sources. And therefore we have looked towards gasification of coal. I want to assure Members here that in terms of energy generation, we are still depending on natural gas which is the least pollutive of all and of course, supplemented by solar energy in a limited way. So, this is not a genco.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2018.

Our Role in the International Community

Louis: Sir, we are faced with issues such as terrorism, cybersecurity, a growing refugee crisis – the list goes on. And these issues are often worsened by climate change. A 2017 World Economic Forum poll involving 30,000 millennials from 186 countries found that climate change was their top concern.

Another growing concern is the refugee crisis. I visited the Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh last month, and what I saw and heard was painful and beyond words. I saw little children's childhood shattered; I saw young people all alone, having watched their family members get killed.

All these issues are complex and inter-linked, requiring resolute political will by the international community to work together.

Singapore has always been a strong supporter of multi-lateral approaches to global issues. How is Singapore working at the ASEAN level, particularly as the current Chair, as well as at the international level, to address challenges such as climate change and the Rohingya refugee crisis?

Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong (The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs): Mr Louis Ng asked about our role in the international community. At the United Nations (UN), Singapore will continue to uphold our reputation as a principled, responsible and reliable country and partner. In July this year, we will attend a High Level Political Forum in New York to share our developmental experience in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals under the 2030 Agenda. We will continue to participate in negotiations on the implementation guidelines of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

At the invitation of the G20 President, Argentina, Singapore will attend the G20 Summit and related meetings in Buenos Aires later this year. Comprising 20 major economies that account for 85% of the world GDP and two-thirds of its population, the G20 makes decisions that affect the rest of us. It is therefore important and also an honour for Singapore to participate in the G20 to offer our perspective and contribute where we can.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Whole-of-Government Approach to Year of Climate Action

Louis: Sir, Minister Masagos declared 2018 as the Year of Climate Action. The public was invited to pledge now to fight climate change. Schools and organisations were invited to join in as well. Green groups were also invited to work alongside the Government to organise events and activities to raise awareness on climate change. This represented a strong effort by the Ministry to meet Singapore's Paris Commitment.

However, recently due to public feedback, I raised a parliamentary question on MTI's decision on the coal gasification plant on Jurong Island. The public felt that the Government does not seen coordinated on our climate change commitments. As such, I would like to ask: to what extent the Year of Climate Action is a whole-of-Government initiative with alignment from the other Ministries? Has MEWR set certain targets to be fulfilled by each Ministry, furthermore, how are the various actions and initiatives under the Year of Climate Action measured in term of impact?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): I would like to assure Mr Louis Ng that the Government is coordinated in tackling climate change. As climate change cuts across various disciplines, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, and supported by the National Climate Change Secretariat ensures whole-of-Government coordination. All public sector agencies are committed to taking climate action, in 2018 and beyond. Last year, we launched the Public Sector Sustainability Plan, setting out targets to save electricity and water, and green our buildings. We will do more by expanding our targets to include waste reduction and solar energy adoption.

Implementation of the Carbon Tax

Louis: Next, I am heartened by the Ministry's bold action to implement the Carbon Tax encouraging companies to consider environmental, and not just financial costs in their business decisions. The Carbon Tax is undoubtedly a milestone, an important pillar in our climate action.

Since its announcement, details on the carbon tax may not be fully understood by the public. As such, can the Ministry share how the carbon tax will be implemented? Our carbon tax price of $5 per tonne is significantly lower than that of other legislations. I understand our pro-business stance but this may not accurately reflect the price paid by the environment. Could the Ministry share how they settled on that figure?

Furthermore, how did the Ministry opt for a Fixed Price Credit Based system, instead of a simple tax, or an Emission Trading System?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Louis Ng asked how we decided on the starting tax rate of $5 per tonne, which we intend to raise to $10 to $15 by 2030. We aim to strike a balance between providing sufficient incentive for companies and Singaporeans to reduce their carbon emissions and giving them enough time to adjust. Our carbon tax will be applied uniformly without exemptions. Other overseas jurisdictions may have significant exemptions for particular sectors. This would lower the effective tax rate. Hence, our starting tax rate cannot be directly compared with those of other jurisdictions.

The carbon tax would apply to larger direct emitters – companies emitting 25 kilo-tonnes or more of GHG emissions a year. Around 40 companies, which account for about 80% of Singapore’s GHG emissions, will be affected.

We will introduce a fixed-price credits-based (FPCB) system where companies will purchase and surrender credits to pay the carbon tax. The FPCB system is akin to a carbon tax, but it will allow us and companies to build capability to operate in a linked market with other carbon pricing jurisdictions if we decide to do so in future.

Coping with a Low-Carbon Economy

Louis: Next, with the impending implementation of the carbon tax and our move towards a low-carbon economy, companies may be concerned about difficulties in making the transition and increased business costs.

The myth that a sustainable development is bad for a country’s economy should be dispelled. It is estimated that meeting our climate change targets would generate additional investments worth $40 trillion globally by 2050. Decoupling emissions from growth provides a golden opportunity to stimulate economic growth by boosting research and innovation, and creating new jobs. In any case, all of us, including businesses, have a moral duty to safeguard the environment for the benefit of current and future generations.

To ensure the benefits of a low-carbon economy can be fully reaped at all levels, how is the Government intending to help companies in Singapore prepare for the carbon tax and transition towards sustainable development?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Miss Cheng Li Hui asked about the tax revenue, while Mr Louis Ng asked about the Government’s support measures. The Minister for Finance has said he is prepared to spend more than what we collect in carbon tax in the first five years to support worthwhile projects. We will share more details later.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following speech in support of Carbon Pricing Bill.

Louis: Sir, I am in favour of establishing a framework for taxing businesses responsible for high Green House Gas emissions.

Climate change is one of the most serious problems of our time, and the consequences of unchecked climate change for every country, including Singapore, are likely to be grave.

In Singapore, industries are the largest emitters of Green House Gases. This Bill is thus an important and necessary step to manage Singapore’s carbon emissions, and is aligned with our commitment to the Paris Agreement.

Nevertheless, many green groups have raised queries and concerns with me. Please allow me to share some of them and seek a few short clarifications on details of the implementation of our carbon tax.

Green groups have shared concerns on the implementation of the Fixed Price Credit Based (FPCB) system, as it seems to require companies to purchase credits at the beginning of each reporting period.

If this is so, companies would thus have to make an accurate estimate of how much emissions the facility would produce for the reporting period, and buy the corresponding number of credits. Can Minister confirm this?

The main concern here is whether any unused credits can be used in the next reporting period. Can Minister clarify this? What would happen to the unused credits? Would they be wasted? Do the credits ever expire?

If unused credits do expire before the next reporting period, I am concerned that facilities that have over-bought credits may be compelled to use less energy-efficient technologies, so as to use up the credits they have already purchased and are unable to transfer or sell. This is a worst case scenario.

However, it is also possible that companies in this situation would feel no incentive to reduce emissions as they have bought more than enough credits. Whichever the case, it would go against the primary objective of this Bill, which is to promote more energy efficient methods of production to drive down carbon emissions. This is certainly not what we want.

Next, greener alternatives for industries and power generation will require substantial investments and all-round support. The Ministry has said that revenue from the tax will fund the green initiatives via two existing schemes: the Productivity Grant (Energy Efficiency), and the Energy Efficiency Fund.

The green community is heartened to know that the funds from the tax will go back in to the green initiatives. With a new stream of funds available, there are hopes that greater support can be given to promote the use of clean energy.

I would like to ask the Ministry if it intends to develop new schemes with the new stream of funds, to further assist industries in the transition towards a low carbon future, and specifically, if it would consider using these funds to directly subsidise the production, research and development of clean energy in Singapore. Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): Mr Louis Ng asked about the FPCB mechanism. Companies can buy credits from NEA at a fixed price throughout the year, but must surrender credits equivalent to their preceding year's tax liability by 30 September.

There is no expiry date on the credits in this initial phase. Nevertheless, companies have told us that they are likely to buy the required credits only after they receive the notice of tax assessment, so as not to tie up their liquidity. Hence, the scenario whereby companies operate their plants in a less efficient manner in order to, as Mr Louis has stated, "use up unused credits", is highly unlikely.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): Last October, EMA also awarded a S$6.2 million research grant to develop our solar forecasting capabilities. I assure Mr Louis Ng that the Government will continue to support and invest in such R&D efforts.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the current efforts to integrate environmental education into our education system; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider working with environmental groups to create a standardised environmental education package for Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and Form Teacher Guidance Periods (FTGP).

Mr Ong Ye Kung (MOE): Environmental education is integrated into multiple subjects taught at the various levels. For example, at the primary level, students learn about conservation, and the negative impact of pollution, global warming, and deforestation on the environment and living things in Science. In Social Studies, students learn about Singapore's physical environment and the importance of using resources responsibly. They also apply their knowledge of the 3Rs: Reduce, Reuse and Recycle in their daily lives as "Environment Champions".

At the secondary level, the Geography, Science and Social Studies syllabi extend students' learning to deeper issues like natural resource depletion, as well as environmental impact of rising global temperature and waste disposal (for example, sewage, toxic chemicals). Students have opportunities to examine and weigh various solutions to achieve environmental sustainability. They also appreciate the inter-dependence of different species in biological ecosystems, understand the importance of conservation and examine the roles of different stakeholders (for example, local communities and business operators) in environmental conservation. 

Teachers engage students in the learning of these topics through inquiry-based learning, and the use of real-world examples and case studies. Students also participate in excursions and conduct fieldwork, such as at parks and nature reserves, to reinforce their learning. 

Schools augment the learning in the formal curriculum with a variety of co-curricular activities and learning experiences. For example, many schools have established their own environmental clubs to enable students to do their part for the environment through action. They also participate actively in various environment-themed projects and activities such as the ABC (Active, Beautiful and Clean) Water Trail organised by the Public Utilities Board, the Greenwave environmental competition organised by SembCorp and the Environment Health Institute's workshops on climate change and dengue. Many schools have also been recognised by the Singapore Environment Council with the School Green Awards for the environmental efforts of their students.

MOE welcomes inputs from different stakeholders as part of our continuing efforts to enrich our students’ knowledge and learning experiences and will incorporate these in our ongoing curriculum reviews.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his budget cut on A Green Public Service at Committee of Supply 2019.

Louis: Sir, last month, Temasek CEO Mdm Ho Ching urged businesses to fulfil their obligation to ensure a liveable and sustainable planet for all. It is a call to action that I fully support. It is also a call to action that the public service, the biggest employer in Singapore, should support.

Public agencies currently follow the procurement principles of fairness, transparency and value-for-money. Can environmental sustainability also be included in these principles? Even with a healthy economy, there will be no future if we do not have a healthy environment.

In the words of Mdm Ho Ching, "There is, as you know, no Plan B for us, because there is no Planet B."

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources): My Ministry will also work with owners of large public sector buildings with food and beverage (F&B) outlets to segregate food waste for treatment from 2021. We are exploring doing so under the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative. 

PSTLES already builds environmental sustainability into our Government procurement, which Mr Ng asked about. Public sector agencies must purchase Energy Star-certified ICT equipment, eco-labelled printing paper and energy-efficient appliances. 

Louis: I have a clarification for Senior Minister of State Amy Khor. I think she mentioned that the public service does do some procurement which are very environmentally sustainable. But could I ask whether we can specifically include this into the procurement principles, not just based on fairness, transparency and value-for-money, but put it in writing that it should also be based on environmental sustainability.

Dr Amy Khor: As I have said under the Public Sector taking The Lead for Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES), they are already practising procurement taking into account environmental sustainability. So, that is why procuring energy-efficient appliances, equipment, sustainability sourced paper, are all part of PSTLES.

Government procurement is for everything. Government procurement principles will be general and the procurement principles are really about transparency, that you need to tender out and so on and so forth. So, these are general principles.

But for environmental sustainability, the public sector has already taken the lead by drafting these guidelines on procuring and taking the lead in terms of environmental sustainability, not just in procurement, but also in other areas.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Singapore’s Role in Coal-fired and Gas-fired Independent Power Producer Projects in the Region

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Can I ask whether MEWR will be urging GIC to also stop funding coal-power projects?

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources): I think we have said that, whether it is GIC or Temasek Holdings, they make their decisions on a commercial basis. But they have said that sustainability is one of the factors that they take into account in their decisions. As I have said earlier, the Government does not interfere or influence the decisions that they make on a commercial basis and this is an important principle of governance that we adhere to.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Sources of Carbon Emissions in Singapore

(Supplementary Question) Louis: The Senior Minister of State mentioned that we are only monitoring the technology of carbon capture. Could I ask whether MEWR is doing a feasibility study of carbon capture as part of our efforts to mitigate climate change?

Dr Amy Khor: When we talk about Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage or CCUS, it is really about capturing the carbon which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere, converting it into something useful or storing it safely. So, indeed, National Climate Change Secretariat has commissioned a study on CCUS technologies, including carbonisation that Mr Leon Perera asked about, to determine the challenges as well as the opportunities of such technology and also to recommend the next steps.

One of the issues, for instance, that we would have to consider is not just economic viability and feasibility, but also whether they meet certain technical requirements, such as environmental standards that have to be met, especially when two-thirds of Singapore is a water catchment area.

These are some areas that we will study. We will continue to monitor developments in these technologies. We are working with the industry as well as with the R&D sector to look further into the technology.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) by what date will the Ministry collect carbon tax payments for 2019 emissions; (b) by what date does the Ministry plan to publish the total amount of carbon tax payments collected for 2019 emissions; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider releasing a breakdown of revenue collected from each taxable facility when the data is available.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): The Carbon Pricing Act (CPA) came into force on 1 January 2019. The CPA gives effect to the carbon tax of $5 per tonne of carbon dioxide-equivalent (tCO2e), to be paid using carbon credits purchased from the National Environment Agency (NEA). The carbon tax applies to facilities in the manufacturing, power generation, waste and water management sectors which emit 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or more annually. These companies have been monitoring their emissions for the year 2019 and must submit verified emissions reports to NEA by 30 June 2020. Companies must pay their 2019 carbon tax liability by 30 September 2020.

The carbon tax revenues will be published annually in the Government's Budget Book, which is released in the first quarter of each year. The Government is unable to disclose company- or facility-specific data due to data confidentiality requirements as provided for in the CPA.

Louis: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am just hoping we can publish that data of what each company is paying. I think the public scrutiny on that, if you compare year by year, then I think the company's policy with regards on climate change will move much faster, if there is public scrutiny on that this. 

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The intention behind the carbon tax is to provide an economy-wide price signal. It is not meant to put scrutiny on facilities or companies. Therefore, what we do, by publishing the data on an economy-wide basis, I think would be more useful for the Government and the public to know which sectors we should be concentrating on and how we are going to move from there. So, we do not find it productive or correct to actually put any company under scrutiny because they pay their carbon tax or because they are compelled by the Act to do so.

Louis: I thank Minister for the reply but maybe as a step back, could we at least publish data based on facility type and size then, without naming the company. So, we know at least which industry is contributing more to carbon emissions in Singapore.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The number of companies that are affected by this Act is very small, around 40. But, they account for about 80% of the carbon emissions in our economy. So, even if you publish by facilities, you can actually do your Maths and make inferences on who is doing what; and I do not think that is what we want to get to.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Publishing Absolute and Percentage Change in Total Carbon Emissions for Facilities that Paid Carbon Tax to Provide Clarity on Emission Impact of Carbon Tax

Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) for 2019, what has been the absolute and percentage change in total carbon emissions for facilities that paid the carbon tax compared to 2017 and 2018; (b) when does the Ministry plan to publish this data if it is not yet available; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider publishing this data on a yearly basis to provide clarity on the emission impact of the carbon tax.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): The Carbon Pricing Act (CPA) came into force on 1 January 2019, giving effect to the carbon tax. The carbon tax provides an economy-wide price signal to encourage emissions reduction and the transition to a low-carbon economy. The carbon tax covers around 80% of our national emissions and applies to facilities in the manufacturing, power generation, waste and water management sectors which emit 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent or more annually. These companies have been monitoring their emissions for the year 2019, and must submit verified 2019 emissions reports to the National Environment Agency by 30 June 2020. The Government is unable to disclose company- or facility-specific data due to data confidentiality requirements as provided for in the CPA. 

The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) publishes data on Singapore's total greenhouse gases annually in the Key Environmental Statistics, which is available on the MEWR website. We also publish more detailed information on our greenhouse gas inventory in accordance with guidelines under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Our latest National Communications and Biennial Update Report was submitted to the UNFCCC in December 2018 and this report can be found on the website of the National Climate Change Secretariat. We will be submitting the next report by December 2020, and it will similarly be made available publicly. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Assessment of Climate Risk in Monetary Authority of Singapore’s Annual Industry-Wide Stress Test

Louis asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Government plans to include climate risk, particularly climate change-related risk, in the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS’) annual Industry-Wide Stress Test (IWST), in line with what the Bank of England is doing and what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommends for central banks; and (b) if not, why the Government is choosing not to do so.

Mr Ong Ye Kung (for the Prime Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) takes climate change-related risks seriously as a financial supervisor. Financial institutions are potentially exposed to such risks, because they provide financing and insurance services to businesses that can be impacted by a wide range of climate change-related events, including natural catastrophes. There are also risks arising from changes to public policies, technologies, or consumer preferences that can impact businesses significantly.

Climate change is therefore increasingly relevant to financial institutions, both because the risks will be on their balance-sheets and because they will play a role in enabling their customers and the economy at large to make a transition – here in Singapore as well as abroad.  

MAS is, in fact, a founding member of the global Network for Greening the Financial System, which develops best practices for a more sustainable financial industry. Locally, we will be issuing a consultation paper on Environmental Risk Management guidelines for various financial institutions in the first quarter of this year.

MAS has already started to stress test for climate change-related risks. For example, in the 2018 Industry-Wide Stress Test, MAS subjected insurers to a scenario featuring extreme flooding and they had to consider the impact of higher claims on their balance sheets arising from damage to insured properties.  

But the methodologies for stress testing climate change-related risk are still at a nascent stage, as international regulators all recognise. The Bank of England, as mentioned by Mr Ng, has acknowledged that central banks and the financial sector are still building capacity to model financial risks arising from climate change. The IMF, too, is working to improve its climate change-related stress scenarios.  

MAS is working towards incorporating a broader range of climate change-related risks in thematic scenarios as part of a future Industry-Wide Stress Test. 

Louis: Just one follow-up question, I am just wondering whether if we can also get our financial institutions to report on the amount of emissions they are financing. That way we can also see just how at-risk they are. 

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Today, that is not the rule, as far as I know. But I think many of our financial institutions see it as in their own interest to report it because shareholders and stakeholders are all watching the data. I think in the end, this will succeed when we can converge commercial interest with social good and environmental good. What is very positive and optimistic is that, such a convergence is happening. It will happen in terms of stress tests, it will happen in terms of their financial evaluation of certain deals, of certain investments; and all these are happening and I think it will be within their own interest to disclose those data.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Catalyst Role for Singapore in Addressing Climate Change Issues

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Thank you, Sir. I think Minister shared the good news that Singapore will be updating our climate pledge. Could i just check when will we be doing so?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: We are finalising; I hope very soon.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for each year from 2019 to 2023 (a) what does the Ministry project will be the absolute and percentage change in net carbon emissions in each individual year; and (b) what percentage of absolute change in each individual year does the Ministry project will be attributable to the carbon tax rate of $5 per tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: For our 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), we have pledged to reduce our emissions intensity (emissions per dollar GDP) by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and to stabilise emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030. Given expected growth in economic activity and increased energy demand, Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise over the next few years before stabilising. Short-term year-on-year emissions projections may be affected by a multitude of factors such as unforeseen disruptions, and are thus not a good reflection of the emissions trajectory.

To achieve our 2030 NDC, the Government is putting in place mitigation measures to reduce emissions across all sectors, such as the industry, transport and building sectors, and ensure that Singapore continues to develop in a sustainable manner. 

The carbon tax is not standalone. It forms part of our comprehensive suite of mitigation measures. It provides an important economy-wide price signal to spur emissions reduction, while giving companies the flexibility to take action where it makes the most business sense. The Government is prepared to spend more than the expected carbon tax revenue of about $1 billion over the first five years to help companies improve their energy and carbon efficiency. As such, it is more meaningful to monitor the progress and impact of our mitigation package as a whole.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 

Louis asked the Minister for National Development what plans does the Ministry have to encourage companies in the private sector to achieve the BCA Green Mark for Super Low Energy Buildings certification.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, BCA launched the Super Low Energy Programme in 2018 to encourage developers and building owners to achieve best-in-class building energy performance in a cost effective manner. The response from the industry has been positive. As of December 2019, 18 buildings have achieved the BCA Green Mark for Super Low Energy certification. 

To drive the adoption of Super Low Energy buildings, BCA worked with the industry and academia to develop a Technology Roadmap, which comprises 60 strategies and technologies that building owners can adopt to increase energy efficiency. We have also enhanced the Green Buildings Innovation Cluster programme with a $20 million top-up last year. 

The programme aims to accelerate the adoption of Super Low Energy buildings through funding the research, development and prototyping of energy efficient building solutions. Through this programme, building owners and developers can work with research partners to develop innovative green technologies for building applications and conduct large-scale demonstrations to assess their feasibility in the local context. In addition, BCA has established the Super Low Energy Building Smart Hub to facilitate the exchange of knowledge on energy efficient technologies amongst industry stakeholders. This is an open database of green building technologies supported by building energy data and analytic tools. The Smart Hub also has an online advisory function to recommend customised retrofitting plans for building owners and developers to green their existing buildings.

We will continue to work with industry stakeholders to encourage companies to achieve the BCA Green Mark for Super Low Energy certification.

Louis: Sir, just one quick clarification. The Technology Roadmap that the Minister of State was talking about, I think we started work on that since 2018. Can I just check whether the study is completed and whether the report is available to the public?

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I thank the Member for his question. In fact, the Technology Roadmap is in place. Today, some of the technologies identified in the Roadmap are the LED lighting with smart controls, decoupled cooling from dehumidification and thermally reflective cool paint. Many of these solutions are novel applications of existing technologies. But, yes, we have also seen some of these technologies being used in some of our buildings today. For example the SMU-X building which uses an enhanced passive displacement cooling system. The system uses the natural convection of heat to move the cool air without the use of mechanical fans, so, therefore, reducing energy consumption. The other example is the NUS School of Design and Environment Building 4 which uses a hybrid cooling system that augments the cool air supply with ceiling fans, making it 46% more efficient than a conventional cooling system. This helps the building achieved substantial energy savings while maintaining a comfortable environment for students.

Louis: I just want to know whether the Roadmap is available for public viewing, so people can see and give feedback, and possibly improve it as well.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: The fact that the technologies are already in use, I think it is already public. So, if the Member needs further information on the Roadmap, I am happy to provide.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 

Louis asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry will consider requiring all Ministries to produce a climate compliance certificate explaining how their budgets and operations will comply with Singapore's climate commitments prior to budget approval.

Mr Teo Chee Hean (for the Prime Minister): Meeting Singapore's climate commitments requires a whole-of-nation effort. Under the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), various government agencies are involved in implementing a series of sectoral mitigation measures to enable Singapore to meet our climate commitments. For example, the Building and Construction Authority's (BCA) initiatives under the Green Building Masterplan will accelerate the proliferation of green buildings. This will help Singapore become an even more sustainable and highly liveable city.

The public sector itself is taking concrete steps to lead in the adoption of sustainable practices and initiatives. This is coordinated through the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative, which was introduced in 2006 and updated in 2017. PSTLES serves as a platform to leverage the collective capabilities across the Whole-of-Government (WOG) to improve resource efficiency in the public sector and effect our commitment towards environmental sustainability.

Under PSTLES, the SolarNova Programme aggregates demand for solar deployment across public sector buildings and spaces, catalysing solar adoption in Singapore. For example, HDB's target to deploy 540 Megawatt peak (MWp) of solar on the rooftops of HDB blocks will make up a significant proportion of our national target to deploy at least 2 Gigawatt peak (GWp) of solar deployment by 2030.

Under the PSTLES initiative, the Government has set targets to reduce our electricity and water consumption, achieve Green Mark standards for our buildings, procure green electronics and paper products, and hold events and functions in venues with at least a Green Mark certified rating.

We intend to raise our ambition for the next phase of the PSTLES initiative. More details will be announced later this year.

Key efforts in environmental sustainability undertaken by government agencies are reported in the biennial publication – Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review (SPOR). The publication takes stock of how Singapore has fared in addressing climate change, water and energy usage, and waste management, amongst other government programmes. In the light of these efforts, there is no need to require the Ministries to produce a climate compliance certificate.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 

Louis delivered the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2020 as follow.

Bringing Forward the Carbon Tax Review

Louis: Next, climate change is an existential threat. I am glad we have introduced the carbon tax to fight climate change.  However, the current $5 per tonne carbon tax rate is too low. The timeline for reviewing the rate is also too long. The Ministry plans to review the tax only by 2023 and increase it to only $10 to $15 by 2030. 

The minimum rate required by 2020 to reach the Paris Agreement temperature target is estimated at $54. 

Young PAP and climate activists hope we bring forward the 2023 review and increase the rate to more than $15 per tonne.

Releasing Emissions Data

Louis: Next, MEWR has said that it will not disclose the carbon tax contributions of companies because the tax was meant only as a price signal. But a tool can have multiple uses.

Releasing emissions data by company and facility is not a new idea. The EU publishes the emissions of 15,000 facilities. The UK requires its 2,000 listed companies to declare their emissions. The German Institute of Economic Research has found that such company-level disclosures work, reducing emissions by 17% permanently.

What I am proposing is a carefully targeted measure. We publish only the data of those that pay the tax. This means only the highest emitters will face pressure. It also means they can stop being published by cutting their emissions. A carrot and a stick.

MEWR says the Carbon Pricing Act does not allow release of the data. If that is true, we can amend the Act. 

The fight against climate change should be built on transparency. Young PAP and climate activists both agree. Will MEWR study the idea of releasing emissions data on taxable facilities and companies?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (MEWR): Mr Louis Ng and Mr Daniel Goh asked about the carbon tax and emissions reporting. The carbon tax, as I mentioned in the past Parliamentary Question, is meant to provide an economy-wide price signal. Hence, only aggregated information will be released. To achieve emissions reductions, rather than scrutinising individual companies, it would be more useful to know which sectors we should concentrate on. The release of individual data could also be commercially sensitive.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I do not have much to show except this shirt which I have worn for five years. And that is the best to go towards zero waste. I have two clarifications.

One is on the carbon tax. We agree that the climate issue, it is an existential threat and that is why we introduced the carbon tax. But the issue here is that we are going to take too long to review it, which is we have committed to increase it by 2030. So, to tackle this emergency, can we look into reducing the time frame, which means can we at least look into increasing it by 2025, which is five years' time instead of 10 years?

Secondly, with regard to the public disclosure. I am just wondering whether MEWR has done any studies or review into the studies that show that there is a positive effect of public disclosure. The example I raised in my cut is the German Institute of Economic Research that showed that this type of company level disclosure will result in a 17% reduction in carbon emission. So, what is holding us back from doing something that will help to reduce emissions here in Singapore?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: The carbon tax is only one of many measures that we have put in to make sure that we nudge our industry, our transport, our buildings towards meeting our targets. But there is also a reason behind that, like I mentioned in the early part of my speech. It is to make sure that we too will do our part in the United Nations' framework for climate change.

Our emission is barely 0.11% of the world's – about 50 mega tonnes. UK – five hundred mega tonnes, thereabout. China – 10 giga tonnes. So, even if we were to halve or eliminate our total GHG, we would not have moved the needle. It is all these other big emitters that must do their part to make sure that we can save our planet.

But the framework is one where everybody must do their best within the constraints of what they can do. So, our solutions fit ourselves and we believe that with what we have put forth, including the time frame, we will be able to manage to achieve our GHG commitments including the new ones that Senior Minister Teo announced, to reduce it by half in 2050 and to being carbon neutral in the second half of the century.

It is important that in the context of which we look at commitments, it is also to look at the constraints and the context of each country's make-up of how they produce these GHG in the first place.

There was a second question on public disclosure. I do not know how we can draw clear causality between the rules around disclosure and the outcomes around reducing GHG. Surely, there are many other things that have nudged or transform these companies to achieve reduction in the GHG emissions. I am quite sure one of them is the UNFCCC framework itself because it has set a mood in the whole world, that countries, companies, had better moved, had better transformed, whether or not you are going to be transparent or otherwise, because that is where the world is going.

And out of responsibility or even out of marketability of the products, that is how people will move. Whether they will move faster with disclosure or not, I am not so sure. I will say though that our SGX has already made the right moves to require companies to do sustainable reporting and they have to comply or they have to explain, if they do not make sustainability efforts.

Reducing Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Use and Emission

Louis: Next, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), commonly used in refrigerators and air-conditioners, are greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. NEA has put in place licensing controls for the import, export and manufacture of 18 types of HFCs which took effect from 1 January 2019. However, Singapore has not yet ratified the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol which requires parties to phase-down the production and consumption of HFCs.

Can the Ministry share whether Singapore will ratify the Kigali Amendment and share its plans to further reduce the use and emission of HFCs in Singapore? 

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: To Mr Louis Ng's question, MEWR will initiate a review on our ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol later this year.

Reporting Public Service Carbon Use

Louis: Temasek has taken a strong lead in tackling climate change and is urging everyone to join them. As Mdm Ho Ching said a few months ago, "Some businesses have already planned for 100% renewable energy before or by 2050. Others are setting yearly goals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. For those of us who have not started, I propose that we take a simple step, to report our electricity and transport usage by next financial year. This is very simple; whether you are big or small, it is a very simple step to take. It is a proxy for our indirect emissions. Once we track and measure, as all businesses know, we can start to scope our solutions to reduce emissions or reduce waste." 

Can the Ministry follow Temasek and take the very simple step of reporting its electricity, paper, travel and water usage? Can the Public Service also follow Temasek and pledge to go carbon-neutral by this year and, like Temasek, ensure that “Sustainability is not just one of our roles. It is at the core of everything we do.”

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Beyond the Ministry, the Public sector as a whole is doing more. Mr Louis Ng asked about our efforts.

In 2017, we launched the Public Sector Sustainability Plan, which charted out our strategies to reduce electricity and water consumption, and achieve Green Mark standards for 100% of our buildings. Ministries and agencies are working hard, and are on track to meet our 2020 targets.

For example, all air-conditioned Government premises should maintain indoor temperatures of 24 degrees centigrade or higher where feasible. All Ministries have also taken the climate action pledge and committed to reducing their plastic, water and electricity consumption. We are reviewing how to bring our plan to the next level.

The Deputy Prime Minister also announced our vision for all vehicles to run on cleaner energy by 2040. The Government will take the lead. From 2023, all new vehicle purchases for Government-owned fleets will be cleaner and greener where feasible. MINDEF, for example, will replace 400 administrative vehicles with hybrids and later, with electric ones when charging infrastructure is ready in 2040.

Together, with net-zero buildings, food waste management, our Army is "green" in more than in their uniforms.

This are but a few examples of what I said earlier in my speech on how the UN Climate Change Framework is shaping climate-conscious behaviours and decisions. We are also reviewing other measures such as the better management of carbon emissions and the use of disposables. More details will be announced later this year.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 

Consideration to Create a Singapore Carbon Agreement

Louis asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources whether the Ministry will consider creating a Singapore Carbon Agreement to facilitate the exchange of best practices for emission reductions across the 23 major sectors of Singapore's economy following the model of tripartite collaborations like the Singapore Packaging Agreement.

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Singapore's Climate Action Plan outlines our climate mitigation strategies across key sectors – namely, the power, industry, transport, buildings, households, and waste and water sectors. Improving energy efficiency is a key strategy that not only contributes to emission reductions, but also enhances companies' long-term business competitiveness.

The Energy Efficiency National Partnership (EENP) launched by the National Environment Agency (NEA) in 2010, aims to support companies in their energy efficiency efforts. The EENP is a voluntary, industry-focused programme, in partnership with the NEA, the Economic Development Board and the Energy Market Authority. As of January 2020, 302 companies have joined the programme. As part of the EENP's learning network, NEA organises the biennial National Energy Efficiency Conference. Companies, organisations and individuals are also recognised for their achievements in energy management through the annual EENP Awards. These platforms allow companies to share best practices and promote the adoption of energy efficient technologies. 

The Government also works closely with industry-led work groups such as the Singapore Chemical Industry Council Industry Sustainability Committee, the Biopharmaceutical Manufacturers Advisory Committee and the Food Manufacturing Energy Efficiency Committee to support companies in energy efficiency improvement.

The manufacturing sector in particular is heterogeneous, with varied manufacturing processes and bespoke equipment and systems. In addition to setting energy efficiency standards for common industrial systems and equipment, NEA analyses the energy performance of systems and equipment of more than 180 energy-intensive companies regulated under the Energy Conservation Act and shares the findings with individual companies, as benchmarked against others in their respective manufacturing sub-sectors.

Climate action requires collective action from all stakeholders. We have been working with our 3P (People, Private and Public) partners to co-create and co-deliver solutions for our environmental challenges. My Ministry will continue to work closely with all stakeholders to build a more sustainable and climate-resilient future.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 

Louis asked the Prime Minister whether there are plans to expand the Green Bond Grant Scheme with stricter regulations to ensure the adherence to the Scheme's definition of eligible expenses.

Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (for the Prime Minister): The MAS' Green Bond Grant Scheme was launched three years ago to catalyse the green bond market in Singapore. To-date, more than SGD 6.5 billion of green bonds have been issued in Singapore.

Over the years, we monitored the take-up of the grant, reviewed and refined the scheme. In February 2019, MAS lowered the minimum issuance size from SGD 200 million to SGD 20 million to support more issuers, including medium-sized enterprises. MAS also expanded the scope of the scheme to include social and sustainability bonds and renamed it the Sustainable Bond Grant Scheme.

Even with changes to the scheme, issuers of green bonds are still required to have in place a green bond framework based on internationally accepted principles – governing the use of proceeds, the evaluation and selection of projects, and reporting on the allocation of proceeds to eligible projects.

Issuers are also required to obtain independent external reviews¹ to assure investors that their frameworks are robust and not subject to "greenwashing", where unsubstantiated or false claims on the environmental contribution of one's products, services or business activities are made. To further reduce greenwashing risks, more work needs to be done globally to develop common standards and definitions, as well as to enhance disclosure and reporting.

Beyond green bonds, having access to a wider range of sustainability financing options would facilitate SMEs' adoption of sustainable business practices. MAS is thus looking into developing a grant scheme for green and sustainability-linked loans, which could potentially be more relevant to SMEs as the loan proceeds can be used for general corporate purposes so long as borrowers meet relevant sustainability metrics. MAS will calibrate the minimum qualifying loan amount to better meet the needs of SMEs.

¹ External review may be second opinion, verification, certification or rating done to support a green/social/sustainability bond status.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 

Louis delivered the following opening speech for the Climate Change Motion.

Louis: Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Sustainability and the Environment, I beg to move*,

"That this House calls on the Government, in partnership with the private sector and the people of Singapore, to deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore".

*The Motion also stood in the names of Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling, Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Don Wee.

Sir, it is too hot! And I am sure everyone has also realised it is too wet! The past January was the wettest January in the past 100 years. Floods submerged our pathways and toppled our trees. Many of our deliverymen got stranded in shelters because it became too dangerous to ride. The past two decades were also the hottest decades on record. But if you think you are sweaty now, get ready to sweat more: Singapore is becoming hotter twice as quickly as the rest of the world.

Our climate is changing for the extreme. Our science and our senses tell us so. As Minister Grace Fu shared last month, “With climate change, we can expect more of such erratic weather in future.”

Sir, I remember learning about climate change when I was still a little boy. In fact, I was 10 years old when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988. It saddens me that my daughters Ella, Katie and Poppy will grow up facing the same environmental issues I learnt about when I was in school so many decades ago. Sir, we must do more – a lot more and a lot more urgently.

Today, my fellow Members of Parliament and I will present recommendations on 10 topics. The GPC for Sustainability and the Environment as well as the Young PAP have worked hard and worked together – in partnership with climate activists, business leaders and members of the public – to come up with these recommendations.

We are pushing hard for changes but, at the same time, we are mindful not to push people and businesses away. We are mindful of the trade-offs, particularly for our economy and jobs, and we have sought to find the right balance. All of us believe that a healthy economy and a healthy planet can go hand-in-hand and should go hand-in-hand.

Sir, let me start by sharing why my fellow Members and I have brought this Motion to the House today.

Our first point of departure is the common understanding that climate change is a global crisis that strikes at the very foundations of how Singaporeans live. In his 2019 National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee called climate change “one of the gravest challenges facing humankind.” He outlined how Singapore will be hit. Rising sea levels may put coastal areas underwater. Floods may become more frequent. Developers will have to build at higher levels than before. Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars will have to be spent on massive projects, such as building polders.

Singapore has always managed to build our way around problems. We built upwards, touching the sky with skyscrapers and HDB blocks. We built outwards, reclaiming land from the sea. We built our NEWater plants, turning waste into water. But climate change is not an ecological threat that our engineers can just build around. It is an economic and political threat. 

Near and far from our borders, cities and villages will face the test of climate change. Some will sink into the ocean. Others will be consumed by wildfires. Farms and fisheries will be reshaped, disrupting supply chains. The polar ice caps will melt, opening new shipping routes that bypass Singapore’s port. There may be price instability. Businesses and consumers will both be affected. There may even be geopolitical conflicts over water resources. 

In other words, we cannot hope to escape climate change through superior engineering and high-quality design. Globalisation means climate change will find a way to hit our livelihoods, our breadbaskets and our peace.

This brings me to the second reason we have brought the Motion to this House: it upholds Singapore's reputation of fulfilling our international commitments.

As Minister Vivian will tell you, we are a little red dot, but there is nothing little about our voice. We have led negotiations in the most significant multilateral agreements of our time. We have hosted peace summits, had UN conventions named after us and had our people elected to lead UN agencies.

All this is made possible because our diplomats at MFA and our Public Service work so hard. But it is also made possible because Singapore has a reputation for responding when the international community calls.

So, our Motion today responds to what is perhaps the most critical call of our century – former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's call that every country must take urgent, immediate action to combat climate change. More than anyone else, Singapore understands the significance of going together, not going alone. On these rough tides, every pair of hands counts.

We have signed the Paris Climate Agreement, but we must do more. Our recommendations today provide specific proposals on what we can do.

Our third and last reason for bringing this Motion here today is that it responds to voices Members of this House must all have heard. These voices come from Singaporeans, young and old. In the past few years we have seen them build, organise, research, educate and advocate to move the needle on climate change.

Let me start with a voice from the private sector.

Esther has been City Developments Limited's Chief Sustainability Officer for over 25 years. It really is not common to see a business leader advocate about climate change like she does. In one breath, she is talking about Sustainable Cities Index; in another, she is casually dropping data about Canada's climate change policy. Let me quote her interview with Eco-Business: "We should ask ourselves what sort of solutions can really tackle the climate emergency and how we can take action. There is no point in just talking if you do not take action."

Good thing, she also walks the talk. She has worked with her company to cut emissions, secure green loans, fund green start-ups and create awareness campaigns. She has won the SDG Pioneer award, given by the UN to business leaders who have done an outstanding job advancing their Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs.

Despite all her time working with titans of industry, her inspiration comes from youths. To quote her again, from interview with The Edge: "Given their energy and desire for a bright future, youths play a vital role in helping our planet to recover from the harm humans have inflicted. We need to engage, encourage and empower youths to drive the green agenda and impart them with the necessary skillsets and tools to drive sustainability for decades to come."

I could not agree with her more about youths being the future. I have spoken with many of them in the past few years and decades. Let me share a few of the personal stories they shared with me.

Xiang Tian is a young man studying at the Singapore Institute of Technology. You may have seen him holding a microphone and giving a heartfelt speech at the Singapore Climate Rally in 2019. But his passion for the environment goes much further back. It started in kindergarten, when NEA gave out a Green Package to his class. His memory is vivid: it was three books and one music CD, instructing him on how Singapore will pile up with trash if he did not reduce, reuse and recycle.

And so he did. But that was not enough. He learned, as we all do, that big problems require big solutions. So, he started studying engineering, with an eye on finding solutions. He connected with other passionate people. He founded LepakSG, which consolidates environmental events in a single calendar.

"Lepak" means relax, but he is nothing but hard work. In fact, what he finds energising is that the climate change community are the kind of people who, like him, are happy to volunteer their Friday nights and weekends discussing problems, researching solutions, gathering feedback, reaching out to public agencies.

"No one is Superman," he told me. "We cannot save the world by ourselves. But we can move others and we can change systems." And that is exactly what he is doing and, as many of us know, he is doing this while infamously always wearing his slippers.

Like Xiang Tian, Lastrina found a connection with the environment at a young age. Her dad came from Pulau Sakijang Pelepah, or what some of you may know as Lazarus Island.

Growing up around sea captains and divers, she gained a natural appreciation for the environment. But almost 10 years ago, she heard what the experts were saying about climate change. "Something worrying was happening," she said. It was time to graduate from appreciating the environment to helping it.

And so, in 2015, she started the Singapore Youth for Climate Action with some friends. She understands instinctively how powerless other youths feel in today's world.

The solution, she says, is to shine the light on what they can do. Speak up. Organise. Collaborate. Build a movement. Talk to decision makers. Everyone has a role to play. Her message is one of empowerment, and Singapore is lucky to have her.

Sir, I am happy to share that our People's Action Party's youth wing also has its own activists passionate about sustainability and climate change.

For Wei-Shan from our Young PAP, or YP, sustainability has a lot to do with changing people's mindsets. She has first-hand experience with this. Running a business that designs gifts, she found that clients would almost always opt for plastic packaging even when she recommended greener alternatives. Hard to change people's minds, she says.

It is a challenge, but it is one we cannot shy away from. That is why the many public consultations organised by Wei-Shan and her passionate team mates at YP brought industry experts and climate activists to the same table. Each party gets the chance to persuade and be persuaded. Good policy, she says, must balance the viewpoints of different groups.

Wei-Shan is also a mother of two young children. We are used to seeing their faces during our many Zoom calls. These little ones fuel her passion for sustainability. "I want the world to be better for them in 10, 20 years’; not worse," she says.

Like Wei-Shan, Cynthia's passion is informed by her work. Having worked for over 10 years in the maritime sector, an industry at the heart of global business, she recalls that MNCs were working on sustainability, even before it became a buzzword in Singapore.

That is why she believes good climate policy must be pragmatic. Of course, it must reduce emissions, and of course, it must ensure the welfare of Singaporeans. But the path to that outcome should involve working with the private sector. Acknowledge their concerns. Help them find alternatives. They have the capacity to change, and we all benefit if we help them to do so.

That is why Cynthia and her passionate team of activists at the YP climate change policy team envision such an important role for businesses in their position papers.

But business aside, climate change is, for Cynthia, about responsibility. "We have treated the Earth badly," she says. It is time we do what is right for the future generations.

I hope Members of this House do not make the mistake of thinking any of these people work alone. Xiang Tian, Lastrina, Wei-Shan and Cynthia were all at pains to emphasise the work of others. They are just four names amongst thousands in Singapore who are waging the battle against climate change in their own ways.

We may not agree with everything climate activists say or do. But let us pause and remember: these are Singaporeans who care deeply about helping and protecting something other than themselves. Is that not something we should cherish?

Just as importantly, they speak up because they believe in the capacity of this Government to listen. Is that not something we should respond to?

And so we should. This Motion today responds to their call.

Today, my fellow MPs and I will discuss 10 topics. Let me kickstart the discussion with the first topic: stepping up sustainability standards in the Public Service.  

Government is big business. In 2016, our 35,000 Government contracts were worth a whopping $22.6 billion. As the largest employer and one of the biggest business clients in Singapore, the Government can move the standard business practices of entire industries, just by enhancing its sustainability standards.

It is good that we have the Public Service Taking The Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative. It is also good news that Minister Grace Fu said last year that the Government is already looking at a sustainable framework for Government procurement. We should ensure that these higher standards are robust.

First, life-cycle costing should be expanded to more categories of products. Life-cycle costing is simple. It means when we buy something, we look not just at the price tag, but also at how much it will cost us to maintain, use and dispose. This practice helps us spend less and waste less. The Government currently requires its agencies to do it only for electrical appliances. We should do it also for vehicles, furniture and other products.

Second, Government contracts should measure and set standards for carbon footprints. It is already a common practice in Europe. We should mandate it, especially, for high-emissions infrastructure projects. In addition, we can increase standards on accredited efficiency. For example, public procurement standards currently require air-conditioners to have only three ticks of efficiency. We can raise the standard to four or five ticks, which will save us money in the long run while cutting emissions.

Third, every Ministry should be required to publish a yearly Sustainability Report. This can just be an adapted version of the confidential Resource Management Plans that they already must prepare. It will tell the public how each Ministry is greening its operations.

To sum up, we can do a lot by enhancing our Government's sustainability standards. I will also note that many of our Government's contractors also service other clients. When we tighten our sustainability requirements, it can spark process improvements across the supply chain, creating a multiplied effect.

But Sir, the Government's work does not stop at its procurement or its operations. It sets policies, and this means there are a lot more things it can do.

My colleagues will focus on nine other topics and propose changes in policies. Again, these proposals were formulated from over a year of public consultations with business leaders, researchers, activists and fellow Singaporeans.

Some of the ideas were sparked by YP's Climate Change policy team. The Members' various legislative assistants also contributed to making this happen. My thanks to my own climate change team, led by Elliot. They have done extraordinary work.

Sir, the first topic is carbon tax. The carbon tax is perhaps Singapore's most important policy tool against climate change. I agree that we needed to start low to avoid spooking investors and I agree that our economy needs to emerge from COVID-19 first.

But our 2030 target of $10 to $15 per tonne increase is far too low. Some feel that it simply will not work as a way to slash emissions. IMF, which has one of the most conservative models out there, says our rate needs to be no lower than S$99 in 2030 to keep climate change at safe levels.

Even if we decide that $99 is too high, $15 is not anywhere near enough. We need to be honest with ourselves: without a high enough carbon tax, even with all the other things we do, our emission level might remain high – far too high.

Research studies from Ireland, Scotland and British Columbia find that a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where the money collected is poured back into the economy, could slash emissions while boosting the economy. That is the path we need to take. Mr Don Wee will share more of his thoughts on this topic. Mr Henry Kwek will also share his views about cutting our emissions.

The second topic is professionalisation of the carbon documentation industry to heed the UN's call for global harmonisation of carbon documentation standards.

The third topic is embedding sustainability into our industry transformation maps (ITM) or having an ITM for the sustainability sector.

Both of these topics flow from the reality that climate change is terrible, but the fight against it can create good jobs for Singaporeans and grow our economy. Miss Cheryl Chan will share her take on these two topics.

The fourth topic is the Green Mark scheme. Green Mark sets standards and certifies sustainable construction. It is a good idea, but its standards need to be improved. A Green Mark Silver or Green Mark Gold building, today, may not be very green at all. The scheme needs to be tightened. Ms Poh Li San will speak on this topic.

The fifth topic is climate education and the sixth topic is increasing public access to emissions data of top-emitting entities. Both of these topics are about empowering our citizens. How can we teach our young ones about climate change? What can we do for them outside the classroom? And can we release more data on carbon emissions to the public?

Sustainability is an increasingly integral part of people's lives. We must provide the education and the data needed for people to act in line with their moral compass. This will also help Singapore cut emissions. Ms Nadia Samdin will share more on the topic and Ms Hany Soh will also speak about community involvement.

The seventh topic is charging points for electrical vehicles or EVs. EVs are the future of motor vehicles. Singapore aims to phase out cars with internal combustion engines by 2040. But this shift will be hard if we do not have enough charging points for them. The Government needs the private sector to build more charging points. We need to find new ways to help them do so. Mr Gan Thiam Poh will speak on this topic.

Mr Gan will also speak on the eighth topic, data-sharing mechanisms. The world of business competition is a treacherous place, but robust data-sharing frameworks can help provide the trust needed for industry players to share data, become more efficient and reduce emissions.

The ninth topic is climate defence. Total Defence has six pillars. It is time to add climate defence as the seventh pillar to reflect how climate change is an existential threat for Singapore. Mr. Seah Kian Peng is passionate about this topic and will discuss this in his speech.

Beyond the 10 topics, we are all also concerned about our forests in Singapore. Recently, the Government shared an environmental baseline study carried out by HDB to guide future plans to the Dover, or I should correct it now, Ulu Pandan Forest. I thank HDB for consulting nature groups on the findings and also publishing the study online to seek further public views. I thank Minister for his comprehensive reply during Question Time earlier. 

Many Singaporeans have spoken up. I share their concerns and I too hope that the Ulu Pandan Forest and other forests like the Clementi Forest will be protected. I believe we can work together to find a middle ground and embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore.

Sir, our forests are carbon sinks. They are our vanguard in our fight against climate change. In fact, because we have cut down so much forest in recent years, Singapore's land now emits more carbon than it absorbs. It is needless to say that forests are also sites of great, irreplaceable biodiversity.

The importance of biodiversity in forests is why when I amended the Wild Animals and Birds Act through a Private Member's Bill last year. We included a new section 10 that empowers the Director-General, Wildlife Management to "issue directions to developers to carry out wildlife-related measures to safeguard wildlife, public health or safety, or the health of the eco-system." This was meant to give our Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports more teeth. It also allows wildlife-related conditions in our EIA reports to be formally issued as directions. Developers must comply, or they may be punished by $50,000 fines or six months' imprisonment.

Sir, I am glad that there is good news in that we are protecting more green spaces that were previously not protected. Indeed, we are setting up the new Khatib Bongsu Nature Park and the Sungei Buloh Nature Park Network. I have brought many people, young and old to explore Khatib Bongsu in the past few months and they are all in awe of the amazing biodiversity we have in Singapore and the need to conserve the precious green spaces we have left.

Just last Saturday, my GRC colleague, Mr Derrick Goh and I kayaked with students from Secondary schools in Nee Soon to explore Khatib Bongsu. The kids are now brainstorming and coming up with ideas on how to build this new nature park. They are excited. There is more we can do to protect our flora and fauna. It starts by not destroying the natural habitat.

Many of these species have inhabited this land long before us. They bring life to our island. They remind Singaporeans that a world exists beyond the containers of steel, glass and concrete that we live in. They provide enriching spaces for scientific research. We call it nature, but it is also identity and it is also heritage. Buildings can be rebuilt. Art can be preserved. But it will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years before a living, breathing eco-system like a forest regrows itself.

Sir, we have committed to planting a million trees in Singapore over the next 10 years. Let us also commit to protecting a million existing trees in our existing forests. Ms Rachel Ong will share more of her thoughts on this topic. Mr. Christopher de Souza will also discuss this in his speech in his Adjournment Motion.

Sir, let me end with a quote as always. This, by the former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, "We are the last generation that can take steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Future generations will judge us harshly if we fail to uphold our moral and historical responsibilities."

Sir, way back in 1956, the New York Times published an article, titled "Warmer climate on the earth may be due to more carbon dioxide in the air". It was a warning about climate change and how human actions will contribute to it. I live this moment in sadness and optimism. Sadness because we are somehow fighting the same battle that our forefathers fought decades ago. But, also optimism – because we are now much clearer about what we can do. Optimism because Singaporeans, more than ever before, are speaking up and taking action.

The Government is listening and has done a great deal. We are spending more than $1 billion in carbon tax revenue for the next five years to help our industries become more efficient. We are building solar panels on our flats, reservoirs, ports and even airbases to increase our use of renewable energy. We are making aggressive plans to replace conventional vehicles with EVs and hybrids to cut transport emissions. We are facilitating green loans and green bonds to help green businesses grow. We are making big bets on carbon capture, hydrogen and other aspects of climate science as part of a massive $25 billion research blueprint.

We are doing a lot. But still, we need to do more. Let us deepen and accelerate our climate change efforts. Let us slash our emissions while building new industries and creating new jobs. Let us commit to 2050 as a target year for net zero emissions so we catch up to the many countries we often compare ourselves to, such as Korea and Japan.

Sir, three years ago, I was in London for a conference. I listened to His Royal Highness Prince William as he delivered a passionate speech that has stuck with me all these years. He shared about how he had just returned from a visit to Namibia, Tanzania and Kenya, and how some of the rhinos he saw were under such threat that they had more bodyguards than he had. He said, "It is heart-breaking to think that by the time my children George, Charlotte and Louis are in their 20s, elephants, rhinos and tigers might well be extinct in the wild. I, for one, am not willing to look my children in the eye and say that we were the generation that let this happen on our watch."

In the same vein, Sir, let us not also in our twilight years, have to look our children in the eye and tell them we saw climate change coming and did not do all that we could to avert this climate crisis. There is more work to be done. I hope our Government will continue working with the private sector, with our activists, and with all Singaporeans to do it. I am confident that by working together, we will win this battle against climate change. Sir, I beg to move.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following closing speech for the Climate Change Motion.

Louis: Sir, I grew up watching Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Some of the younger Members in this House will have no idea what I am talking about. It was a cartoon series about protecting our planet. I loved it. This is how the opening went, "Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of the Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet. She sends five magic rings to five special young people: Kwame, from Africa, with the power of Earth; from North America, Wheeler, with the power of Fire, from the Soviet Union – yes that is how old this cartoon is – Linka, with the power of Wind; from Asia, Gi, with the power of Water; and from South America, Ma-Ti, with the power of Heart. When the five powers combine, they summon Earth's greatest champion, Captain Planet."

I also remember the show's catchy theme song, but I remember Speaker's Facebook post about not getting any ideas about singing in Parliament, so I shall not sing it. Plus, it is getting pretty late.

I also remember one sentence, something Captain Planet said over and over again: "The power is yours."

As I shared in my opening speech, Singaporeans, more than ever, believe in Captain Planet's message. They believe the power to protect the planet is theirs. So, they speak up and take action. This makes me optimistic.

But our optimism must not take us away from our urgency. Greenhouse gas emissions reached a new high in 2019.

The Paris Agreement aimed to cap this century’s temperature increase at 1.5-degree Celsius. But instead we are on track for three-degree Celsius change. We are hurtling towards extreme climate change and we must urgently change course.

The Government must help by deepening and accelerating our efforts against climate change. Sir, in summary, the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment is calling for:

One, post-COVID, increase the carbon tax quantum and regularise future reviews.

Two, professionalise the carbon accounting and reporting industry.

Three, incorporate sustainability into the Industry Transformation Map scheme or have an ITM for the sustainability sector.

Four, enhance the Public Sector Taking the Lead in Environmental Sustainability initiative with higher and expanded standards.

Five, introduce rules and incentives to promote the building of publicly accessible charging points by private developers.

Six, revise the Green Mark scheme to increase standards on carbon intensiveness.

Seven, expand climate education in school curricula.

Eight, introduce data-sharing mechanisms on clean energy technologies and energy efficiency.

Nine, increase public access to emissions data of top-emitting private companies and public entities.

Ten, and lastly, add Climate Defence as a seventh pillar of Total Defence in Singapore.

These 10 recommendations will help us meet and, I believe, exceed our commitment under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Sir, many Members have stepped forward today. All of them delivered passionate speeches. I will not be able to do justice to everyone's speeches but let me summarise some themes of their proposals.

The first theme is nature. Members stressed the importance of protecting our natural carbon sinks. Miss Rachel Ong shared the science about trees and alerted us that keeping existing trees is far more effective than planting new ones, though both are important steps.

Mr Dennis Tan asked for additional legal protection for secondary forests. Ms Nadia Samdin, Prof Koh Lian Pin and Miss Rachel Ong rightly noted that our corals, our mangroves, and indeed, our forests powerfully trap carbon and help us fight climate change.

The three Members also stressed the importance of helping Singaporeans learn and become more in touch with nature.

This brings me to the second theme: education. Our youths are our future. For them, Ms Nadia Samdin discussed installing sustainability as a core pillar of our education system.

Education should also involve vocational training. Miss Cheryl Chan suggested preparing young adults so they have the interest, skills, knowledge and connections needed for the green sector.

But education is not just for the young. Mr Christopher de Souza discussed this, his exciting vision for Ulu Pandan as a nature surplus neighbourhood, with nature trails, community gardens and food composting sites. Ms Hany Soh painted a colourful portrait of her Woodgrove community and discussed how all Singaporeans could learn about sustainability through hands-on experience and convenient technologies.

The third theme for today is incentives and regulations – in other words, carrots and sticks. All Members proposed solutions that would limit carbon intensive activities but they also made sure to suggest ways to soften the impact and spark the economy.

Mr Don Wee discussed using carbon tax revenues to grow our industries and protect our households. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim similarly asked to give out a green dividend from our carbon tax revenues. Mr Gan Thiam Poh suggested sharing Government data to help the private sector figure out where to build electric vehicle charging points. Mr Gerald Giam asked to extend subsidies and support for petrochemical workers as the industry shrinks its global workforce.

Mr Leon Perera proposed growing our green industry, particularly those dealing in professional services, like environmental impact consulting and carbon trading verification. Ms Poh Li San suggested a circular financing system to help the construction industry adapt to tougher Green Mark standards. Miss Cheryl Chan asked for increased support and a more generous timeline for SMEs to file ESG reports. Mr Louis Chua asked for greater reliance on solar energy and cited statistics to show how the clean energy sector can create good jobs for Singapore. Mr Henry Kwek pitched solutions like investments in geothermal solutions and carbon offsets to help the economy adjust to decarbonisation.

Together, these balanced recommendations show that Members want Singapore to be both green and prosperous, not just one or the other.

Sir, Mr Leong Mun Wai expressed broad support for our 10 topics. I thank him for that. He also raised some general concerns about trade-offs. As I mentioned, many Members have been proactive in raising these trade-offs in their speeches and propose specific ideas on how to overcome them. 

There is no disagreement that a healthy economy and a healthy environment need to go hand in hand and I encourage Mr Leong to continue sharing his ideas on how to manage these trade-offs. Mr Leong said that forest protection and climate adaptation were not included in the Motion's 10 topics. I think Mr Leong will find that several Members today have raised proposals on both topics, myself included. The 10 topics are not an exhaustive list.

Mr Leong also asked whether EVs would reduce emissions in Singapore's context. The answer to this is yes. The E-mobility Technology Roadmap published by the Energy Research Institute at NTU looked at the data and found that by 2050, EVs are expected to reduce emissions by up to 64% in Singapore.

Sir, I thank Mr Dennis Tan and Miss Cheryl Chan for their proposed amendments. I agree with Mr Tan on the importance of civil society. I spent more than two decades of my life as a civil society activist. We have not just recognised the role of civil society but we have actively engaged them throughout the year long consultation. They have played a crucial role in this Motion and, as I mentioned, in my opening speech, this Motion responds to their call.

The original Motion's statement focused on the three Ps that we are all familiar with – the public, private and people sector. Having said that, I support the inclusion of the word "civil society" into the Motion's statement.

Sir, the Motion's statement today is also about actions rather than what climate change is. We already know what it is. There is no debate about that.

As I have shared in my opening speech, Prime Minister Lee has already stressed that climate change is "one of the gravest challenges facing humankind." This Government already recognises that the existential threat of climate change is an issue that nations cannot ignore.

I believe all of us in this House are on the same page but, Sir, we drafted the Motion's statement that reflects actions. That is important. We have drafted it that way to focus on actions and how we can deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. That was my preference but I recognise the merits of the proposed amendments and I agree with the rationale.

I thank Miss Chan for the proposed amendments of acknowledging that climate change is a global emergency and a threat to mankind. I believe this will reflect the climate change issue more holistically and focus again on action on how we all need to work together in this global community. I hope that all of us in this House will support the proposed amendments.

Sir, I will also like to thank Minister Grace Fu for responding positively to our proposals and concerns and for her strong and continued commitment in ensuring that sustainability is at the heart of everything we do.

Indeed, sustainability has and always will be a part of Singapore’s DNA.

I thank Minister for sharing about our strong Climate Action Plan today and most importantly the good news that we have a new Singapore Green Plan 2030.

This whole-of-nation movement to advance the sustainability agenda in Singapore is an important one and I am glad that the plan is a multi-Ministry effort, and that it will be a major policy priority for this Government. That really is good news.

To conclude, I would like to refer to a point Mr Seah Kian Peng made. As part of his ask to include Climate Defence as a pillar of Total Defence, he argued that Singapore needs to take bold, unprecedented steps. There must be a new willingness, a new resolution by the Government to do things differently.

I could not agree more with him. Sustainability must become a core part of our nation’s development. It will take time, but every corner of policy-making – and indeed way of life – must transform to match our aspiration towards sustainability.

Sir, I thank all the Members who spoke up on this important issue. My heartfelt thanks also to the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment, the Young PAP's Climate Change Policy Team, my Climate Change Team, business leaders, researches, activists and fellow Singaporeans who all contributed to this Motion and the recommendations.

Sir, the Government plays an important role to co-lead, to nurture, to protect our environment and to set policies and enforce legislation in this battle against climate change.

Each one of us in this global community also plays an important role and by working together, this battle is strengthened and this fight for our planet becomes stronger.

Sir, I often push for changes in this House but there is finally one change I am not pushing for and that is climate change.

Let us make sure that climate change becomes a thing of the past, something our children learn about in this history lessons. Sir, the power is indeed ours. Let us change our mindset, our behaviours and our policies to move the needle on climate change.

Let us focus on action and deepen and accelerate efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to embrace sustainability in the development of Singapore. Thank you.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following Budget Cuts at Committee of Supply 2021.

Net-zero Carbon Emissions by 2050

Louis: Madam, we are in a race to the bottom for climate change. Race to the bottom of the amount of carbon emitted. Several cities such as Hong Kong, Monaco, Delhi have pledged to work towards net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The European Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea, together with more than 110 other countries, have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050.  

 Of course, commitments must be back by ambitious action and concrete plans. But setting a goal is invaluable in itself.  

First, it sends a clear signal to its industries, citizens and civil society on the direction and speed of policy change. The signal will have a trickle down effect in influencing decisions in boardrooms and individual action.  

Second, it provides a yardstick for measuring if we are taking bold enough actions to achieve our declared goals.  

Will Singapore also pledge to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and what are our plans to achieve this goal? 

Mr Teo Chee Hean(Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security): Mr Louis Ng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Ms Poh Li San will be glad to know that the goals which we have set are not meant to be static. We will press ahead with the measures which are within our control, and we will halve our emissions by 2030. But how soon we can achieve net zero, that means eliminate the other half, depends not only on what we do but it depends on what is done internationally in areas such as evolving and maturing key technologies, as well as international collaboration on key areas, such as carbon markets as well as the import and export of green electricity. We will continue to review our climate goals with the aim of achieving net zero emissions as soon as viable.

Louis: Thank you, Madam. I was quite excited for a while when Senior Minister said we would reach half of our emissions by 2030 but then he burst my bubble. But I really hope that we can try to reach net zero emissions by 2050. If not, could I ask whether we can at least narrow the timeframe. So, instead of by the second half of the century, which could be 79 years' time, when I was hoping we can actually see net zero emissions within my lifetime. But if we can at least reduce here, maybe by 2060 or 2070. If not, can the Government at least consider to focus it on a per sector basis? So, something like what MOE has done which is that 20% of the schools will achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.

The second question really is for MOE – when can we expect the other 80% of the schools to reach carbon neutrality?

Third, Minister Tan mentioned about how we are planning to import hydro power from Lao PDR and that sounds environmentally friendly. But I just wonder whether we have also studied the environmental impact of building this hydro-electric power station, how destructive it is for the environment there and for the wildlife. I hope MTI can consider not just importing the renewable energy but making sure that it does not have that big an impact on the environment in other countries.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Indeed, Madam, I think inherent in the series of questions that Mr Louis Ng asked, are all the trade-offs that we have to balance when we try and achieve the targets that he is talking about.

One of the things which we have to consider is whether we want to import electricity. Other jurisdictions, for example, claimed to have to achieve this target, but actually, they are importing nuclear energy from their neighbours. Is that something which Mr Louis Ng thinks is a good idea? There are different things that we need to do.

When we are considering importing clean and green energy from other countries, there are also other considerations which we have to take into account. All these things, inherently, have trade-offs.

Our targets, our LEDS by 2050 are based on what we can control ourselves and all the things that we are doing in all the different sectors within our control. We will do that to bring our emissions down by half. Roughly speaking, half of what we emit, we can control. The other half depends on what other people do and whether or not we are able to develop the technologies, some of which do not exist today; whether we are able to get importation of electricity; whether we are able to get carbon markets to work properly. Those are not things which are wholly within our control.

And as Mr Louis Ng said himself, even if we did all that, we have to consider the other consequences of all those actions.

These are imponderables which we need to consider with the passage of time. I am not in the business of bursting bubbles. And I certainly do not want to create a bubble which future generations will have difficulty trying to meet. We do not make promises which would cause future generations problems in trying to keep as well. I think Mr Louis Ng would probably agree with that.

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOE): Mdm Chair, on Mr Ng's question on the school sector, we have some schools getting into net zero by 2030. Mr Ng asked what is the timeframe for the rest of the school sector. We will strive to do this as soon as possible. Certainly, I hope within my lifetime; but post-2030, we will try very hard to get all schools to be net zero.

It is not so difficult for the school sector compared to the whole of Singapore. But beyond just putting in the infrastructure to achieve net zero, what I had highlighted earlier which I think is much more important, is to get mindsets to change. We want to inculcate in our students from an early age the mindset of sustainability, to appreciate the importance of habits. I think that is far more important than just putting in solar panels and then putting in new technology and getting the school infrastructure to be net zero. That we will do; I think that for schools, because it is more compact, it is relatively easier. But getting the software, getting the understanding, the habits and the mindsets – that is an important endeavour we want to do in the school sector as well.

Dr Tan See Leng (Second Minister for Trade and Industry): I thank Mr Louis Ng for the question. For the import from Lao PDR, in terms of the hydro power, it is a pilot. We will consider all possible sources of renewable energy. One of the key aspects of this thing would be that we would be getting all prospective importers to submit information on their energy sources as well as environmental studies that have been done to see what the impacts are. And that is why at this particular point in time, it is still a pilot. We are piloting from Lao PDR, we are also piloting from Malaysia.

And as we learn more in the months and in the years ahead, we will collate and find the best way forward. 

Reviewing PSTLES

Louis: The Government introduced the Public Service Taking The Lead in Environmental Sustainability (PSTLES) initiative back in 2006. During Committee of Supply last year, PMO announced that it intends to raise its ambitions and for the next phase of the initiative. Can the Ministry share some of its plans and targets?  

Under current initiative, each Ministry is required to appoint a Sustainability Manager to set sustainability targets for FY2020 and to develop a resource management plan to meet its targets. In addition to the reporting in the Singapore Public Sector Outcomes Review, will the Government consider requiring Sustainability Managers to publicly report annually how well their Ministries have fared in achieving targets set for their Ministries?  

Also, many countries have emphasised the importance of a green recovery, even as the world continues to reel from the COVID-19 pandemic. What are the Public Service's own plans on environmental sustainability and how does it intend to decarbonise? 

Ms Grace Fu (MSE): The Public Service will lead on sustainability as part of the GreenGov.SG initiative which Deputy Prime Minister announced in his Budget speech. We will have four shifts.

First, we will set more ambitious goals for the Public Service, including a carbon target for the first time. We aim to peak the public sector's emissions around 2025, ahead of the national target of around 2030. 

Second, we will expand the scope of GreenGov.SG beyond Government offices, to include other public sector infrastructure and operations. GreenGov.SG will encompass a far wider array of assets to include waste-to-energy plants, public transport infrastructure, hawker centres and healthcare facilities. With this expanded scope, the public sector will take on a greater responsibility to enhance the sustainability of our operations. 

Third, we will embed sustainability practices in the public sector's core business areas and influence our service providers and suppliers to be more sustainable. One key tool is in green procurement. As a major consumer of goods and services, the public sector can and will influence the industry towards sustainable business choices and practices by incorporating more sustainability requirements in our procurement framework.

Fourth, we will build an organisational culture of sustainability and grow the movement amongst Public Service officers. More details on GreenGov.SG will be released over the course of the year. 

Ranking of Top Emitters

Louis: Madam, I have asked several times in this House for the Government to disclose data on top emitters in Singapore. As I mentioned during the climate change Motion, Singaporeans increasingly live their lives in a sustainable way. They should be given more information with which to make their consumption decisions.  

The UK already requires all big companies to include emissions data in their annual reports, and the EU provides large amounts of emissions data on all facilities level across its member states. The German Institute of Economic Research has found that such company-level disclosures work, reducing emissions by 17% permanently.  

The Government has shared that company-level emissions may reveal confidential business performance. In this case, I propose that we publish a ranking of the top emitters without sharing their exact emissions level. This allows the public to make more informed consumption decisions without compromising the business confidentiality of our businesses.  

Will the Ministry consider this proposal? It strikes a fair balance between the trade-offs. 

Ms Grace Fu (MSE): Decarbonisation and improving energy efficiency will continue to be our focus. Mr Louis Ng asked if we can publish a ranking of top emitters. We agree on the need to provide a strong impetus for companies to reduce emissions and we will continue to study how we can spur this meaningfully.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Review of Targets in Singapore Green Plan following Sixth Assessment Report of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Louis asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment following the latest report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whether the Government will review and bring forward the plans to reach net zero emissions.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (MSE): The latest report from the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a sobering assessment of the grave threats posed by climate change. Singapore remains fundamentally vulnerable to the impact of climate change.

Senior Minister Teo, who chairs the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, outlined Singapore’s Considered, Committed and Collective approach to climate action at this year’s Committee of Supply debates. As a small city-state with limited land and alternative energy options, we face much starker trade-offs in mitigating our emissions. But we are committed to doing our full part in the global fight against climate change. Our ambitious climate goals have real impact on Singapore’s development and the lives of Singaporeans, and are made after careful and co-ordinated planning. Last year, we submitted our enhanced 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and our Long-Term Low-Emissions Development Strategy (LEDS) under the Paris Agreement. Less than a year later, we launched the Singapore Green Plan 2030, our national roadmap towards sustainable development and net-zero emissions. The Green Plan builds on our enhanced NDC and LEDS and maps out ambitious targets and concrete initiatives over the next decade. 

Several Members have asked if we would review our initiatives and targets in light of the latest IPCC findings. Let me assure Members that these are not static. We are pressing ahead decisively with our initiatives and gaining experience from implementing them. Where the conditions allow, we will strengthen our suite of initiatives and push ourselves to do more. The extent to which we can realise emissions reductions will become clearer, as technology evolves and matures, and as the modalities for international cooperation and collaboration become formalised. We are making efforts on both fronts. We are investing and working with key partners on low-carbon technologies and solutions, such as hydrogen. We are also working hard on the international front to advocate for a multilateral, rules-based approach to address climate change, and to foster collaboration in areas like carbon markets and regional energy grids that will support our push for decarbonisation.

In the meantime, we are advancing our efforts to transform our industry, economy and society to be more energy and carbon efficient. Central to this is the carbon tax, which helps to drive economy-wide emissions reduction. We are reviewing our carbon tax regime, to price carbon at a level that can spur the reduction of our carbon footprint and promote industry innovation and green growth, while maintaining Singapore’s economic competitiveness. While we will maintain the carbon tax level at $5 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions up until 2023, the Deputy Prime Minister and then Minister for Finance stated at Budget 2021 that we are reviewing the post-2023 trajectory and level of carbon tax, as the urgency and global momentum for climate action have accelerated. This review will be done in consultation with industry and expert groups, and the outcome will be announced at Budget 2022 to give ample time for businesses to adjust.    

The carbon tax complements the comprehensive suite of measures in the Green Plan to reduce emissions across all sectors. This includes quadrupling our solar energy deployment by 2025, greening 80% of our buildings by 2030 and investing in low-carbon technologies such as carbon capture utilisation and storage and low-carbon hydrogen. The public sector will take the lead and aim to peak its emissions around 2025, five years ahead of the national target. We will review the public sector’s climate targets and strategies together with our national goals. 

As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, we will examine how to lock in some of the gains from the increased prevalence of telecommuting over the past year, as Dr Lim Wee Kiak has suggested. Our preliminary analysis indicates that Singapore’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 had fallen compared to 2019 levels, mainly due to lower levels of economic activity in the industry sector. It is not conclusive that telecommuting has reduced emissions as working from home may have increased demand for services such as online shopping and food deliveries that increase transport emissions. We have also observed an increase in emissions from households due to increased electricity use. When the emissions data for 2020 is available, we will provide a full update.

As we move towards a low-carbon economy, businesses and financial institutions have an important role to play in channelling capital towards sustainable development. Ms He Ting Ru asked if there are plans to commit the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) to having a portfolio of net zero emissions. The Minister for Finance has previously stated that the Government does not prescribe the individual investment actions of our investment entities, which make independent commercial decisions. Nonetheless, we note that GIC is already holistically integrating sustainability considerations in their investment processes so as to protect and enhance the long-term value of their portfolios. 

Miss Cheryl Chan asked whether there is a system in place to review and track Singapore’s long-term environmental commitments. We do so through the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), chaired by Senior Minister Teo and also regularly report the progress of our climate efforts to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Moving forward, we will provide regular updates on the progress of our broader efforts under the Singapore Green Plan. We hope that this will galvanise Singaporeans to make steady progress on these challenging and ambitious goals to create a more sustainable and climate-resilient future.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Public Consultation for Review on Carbon Tax

Louis asked the Minister for Finance whether a public consultation will be conducted on the review of the carbon tax. 

Mr Lawrence Wong (MOF): We announced at Budget 2021 that we are reviewing the post-2023 carbon tax level and trajectory to spur the transition to a more sustainable future, while maintaining our overall economic competitiveness. The outcome of the review will be announced at Budget 2022 to provide time for adjustment to the changes.

We will engage widely as part of this review. The public have also been providing their views, through ongoing engagements on how the Singapore Green Plan and the carbon tax can help us achieve a low-carbon, sustainable future. In the annual lead up to Budget 2022, MOF will also seek views from the public. More details on engagements will be shared as they become available.

The transition to a greener and more sustainable future will involve difficult trade-offs. But there will also be opportunities for innovation and growth. The Government will continue to support Singaporeans and businesses through this transition. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether Singapore can commit to phasing out the use of unabated coal in its electricity mix earlier than the committed 2050 timeframe announced with Singapore's joining of the Powering Past Coal Alliance on 4 November 2021.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (MTI): Coal makes up around 1% of Singapore’s power generation capacity. It is used only at the Tembusu Multi-Utilities Complex (TMUC), which produces electricity and steam using a mix of clean coal (i.e. low-ash and low sulphur) and biomass to reduce the overall carbon intensity of the plant.

We do not intend to build any new unbated coal-powered plants. The timeline for phasing out TMUC will need to take into account the remaining asset life of the plant and the availability of viable alternatives for companies that it supplies to. We will work with the companies to explore bringing forward the timeline and mitigating the emissions where possible.  

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2022:

Net-zero Carbon Emissions by 2050

Louis: Sir, I am glad we have announced our new target of reaching net-zero emissions by or around mid-century. Many activists in Parliament and outside, have been speaking up about this for many years. We are glad that our voices have been heard and that we have a much more ambitious target. We thank all the Ministries and agencies for their hard work.

But I hope we can have a more specific target. Reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century would be good but around mid-century would not be that good. But around mid-Century will not be that good.

Twenty-fifty is not just a random year. It is based on science; global emissions must be net-zero by 2050 if we want to have any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In Singapore, SIA, Temasek, and DBS have committed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Singapore always punches above its weight on the international stage. We should also punch above our weight when it comes to climate change. Many other countries have made this very specific pledge. Can Singapore also reach net-zero emissions by 2050?

Mr Teo Chee Hean (The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security): Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Poh Li San, Mr Louis Chua, Mr Louis Ng and Prof Koh Lian Pin asked about Singapore's key considerations and the process for setting our climate targets and the timeframe. In our LEDS two years ago, we laid out three thrusts to achieve our aspiration. First, transforming our industry, economy and society; second, harnessing low-carbon technologies; and third, pursuing international collaboration, for example, in the form of carbon markets and electricity imports. We said that we would continue to review our climate goals with the aim of achieving net zero emissions as soon as viable. If the potential emissions reductions from each of these thrusts are available sooner, we will be able to realise our goals earlier. 

Mr Chairman, since then, there have been important developments at COP26 at Glasgow. This marks an important inflection point. More countries pledged to reach net zero by mid-century. More companies have also made net zero commitments. This will spur greater investment in low-carbon solutions, making them technologically and economically viable earlier. The Paris Agreement Article 6 rulebook for international carbon markets was also finalised. With these important developments, we are now able to have greater clarity and to raise our ambition to achieve net zero emissions by or around mid-century in line with the Glasgow Climate Pact. 

Mr Chairman, this is a significant improvement over our current LEDS. We are making a decisive move: one that is necessary, practical and implementable. We are making a commitment on behalf of generations of Singaporeans to come, spanning several decades into the future. I am glad that Members from both sides of this House support these moves. 

Before we finalise our plans and declare a specific net zero year, we will consult closely with industry and citizen stakeholder groups. This is because raising climate ambition will bring about many benefits but also entail some costs and trade-offs. These engagements will take place under the Green Plan and our broader SG Together movement. We will at the same time review our 2030 NDC. We will then declare and make a formal revision to both our NDC and LEDS later this year.

Let me elaborate on why we assess that we can now make this decisive move and why we should do so. 

First, why we can. COP26 successfully finalised the rulebook for international carbon markets. Carbon markets allow Singapore to access global mitigation opportunities through international carbon credits and provide an additional option for us to decarbonise.

I thank Minister Grace Fu and our officers for playing a key role as co-facilitator of the COP26 multilateral discussions on Article 6 to finalise these rules. This was one of the most difficult negotiations in COP26. These rules lay the foundation for rigorous, robust and credible carbon markets, and provide clarity on environmental integrity and accounting by buyer and seller countries when reporting their national emissions. They enhance the transparency of international carbon trading, and provide the necessary quality assurance for Singapore to use high quality international carbon credits to help meet our climate goals. 

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Minister for sharing that we will be doing some consultations when it comes to the net-zero emissions. Could I ask that we consult with the NGOs and activists sooner rather than later because I think they shared with me that they were consulted rather late when it came to the carbon tax increase?

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Yes, of course.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 1, 2

Expand the Coverage of Carbon Tax

Louis: Sir, currently, carbon tax applies only to facilities emitting at least 25 kilo-tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. This covers around 50 facilities that contribute to about 80% of our total carbon emissions. We should aim for a higher coverage. 

I understand that the Government sets a high threshold to limit compliance costs by smaller emitters. But smaller emitters, those emitting at least two kilo-tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, are already “reportable facilities” and have to pay the costs of monitoring and measuring their emissions.

Given that any additional compliance costs would likely be minimal, it makes sense for the carbon tax to cover all reportable facilities. This would, after all, be in the spirit of a whole-of-nation fight against climate change. Emitters, small and large, have a role to play.

Will the Government expand coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities?

Mr Teo Chee Hean (The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security): Mr Louis Ng asked to expand the coverage of the carbon tax to include all reportable facilities.

At this point in time, we will retain the threshold of 25,000 tonnes of emissions. This covers about 80% of our emissions and is already one of the highest in the world. Coupled with our existing taxes on transport fuels, we are achieving around 90% coverage. Lowering the threshold would impose significant additional regulatory burden and costs on companies without any meaningful increase in coverage.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore) 1, 2