Commentaries (FY2009)
Benjamin TANG, "Influence Behaviour to cut Energy Use",26 March 2010.
Behaviour interventions work by subtly altering the context in which consumers make choices. This can result in more efficient use of energy and help reduce carbon emissions. As behaviour interventions in energy use can be expanded to the entire community at low cost once they are proven to be effective in energy conservation, it is a cost efficient measure that should be welcome in pragmatic Singapore. |
|
Tilak K DOSHI,“Conserving Energy: Paradox and Policy”,15 March 2010.
Studies show that people are slow to adopt cost-effective energy-conserving technologies. Examples include compact fluorescent light bulbs, improved insulation materials and energy-efficient household appliances. This then is the paradox: Why does there seem to be so little investment in these forms of technology when they save money and energy? |
|
Elspeth THOMSON,“Nuclear Power: Time for a Feasibility Study”, 8 February 2010
There are now many more nuclear energy plant designs to consider than there used to be. Some power plant companies are now claiming that a buffer zone of only a couple of kilometres, or even less, is required and that the new plants have features which greatly reduce the chance of accidents. Singapore needs to decide on what is an acceptable level of probability for a nuclear power plant accident. If what some major power plant companies are saying today about drastically reduced space requirements, improved safety features, and so on, is true, Singapore cannot afford not to consider the nuclear option. |
|
Tilak K DOSHI,“Singapore can be Carbon Trading Hub for Ships”, 15 December 2009
The establishment of an international policy regime for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from global shipping is probably among the most important challenges facing Singapore negotiators at Copenhagen and beyond. The most strategic general question facing International Maritime Organization (IMO) members, charged with submitting emission reduction proposals, revolves around the “tax vs. cap-and-trade” debate. Singapore as a global shipping and bunkering hub is advantageously placed to benefit from active carbon trading. Energy and GHG emissions are of course intimately related, and the establishment of a carbon pricing centre would further add to the city’s role as Asia’s energy hub. |
|
CHANG Youngho, Benjamin TANG, “Taxing Questions on the Carbon Challenge”, 3 December 2009
Any regime to control greenhouse gases will require a price to be placed on emissions. This will create the economic signals necessary to change consumer behaviour and ultimately to favour products with smaller carbon footprints. There are two main ways to price carbon emissions: carbon tax and cap-and-trade. Costs will rise in both cases. World leaders will meet in Copenhagen next week to determine a successor framework to the Kyoto Protocol. When implemented properly, a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system - or a combination of both - will work. But whatever approach policymakers adopt, it will turn out to be either overly lax or overly stringent, depending on the developing science of climate change and what we learn about global warming. Whatever regime we adopt, it will have to be tweaked as more information becomes available. |
|
|
|