Accelerate and Deepen Efforts Against Climate Change

3.11 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): 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.

Question proposed.

3.39 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic. I want to thank Mr Louis Ng for raising this Motion as I believe it to be particularly important. Singapore has long been renowned globally for being a City in a Garden and that status allows us to play our small part on the world stage. For example, Singapore played an instrumental role behind the scenes in the build-up to the signing of the Paris Agreement in December 2015. In fact, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan played a major role in that. This was recognised by then President of the United States Barack Obama when Prime Minister Lee made a State Visit to Washington DC in 2016.

Furthermore, we are known for our efforts in promoting regional sustainability. In 2014, during the peak of the haze period, we passed the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act that allowed regulators to prosecute local and foreign companies that engaged in illegal forest burning that causes severe air pollution. So, in partnership with other countries in Southeast Asia, we can strive towards regional sustainability that protects not only our own forests, but the forests of surrounding countries. We can do our part, our small part to arrest climate change.

Mr Speaker, Singapore, as a global city, is poised to play a critical role toward regional urban sustainable development through a more comprehensive ecological assets and biodiversity value framework. To realise this vision, we must think out of our island-box when it comes to climate change impact and possibilities. Instead of approaching this as a dichotomy between conservation and development, we must become a biophilic country that views its forests as assets to not only protect, but to grow and invest in for its biodiversity value to our residents.

On that note, I would like to have it stated on record that I believe HDB and MND have already started to embody this concept of biophilia that has led to reports like the Environmental Baseline Studies, for which I am appreciative.

Mr Speaker, there are many other aspirations I have on this point, but I will speak more on this and other topics during my Motion to preserve Dover Forest.

The second point I want to make is about how we can continue to develop ground-up initiatives to cultivate a culture of biophilia. By this, I mean that sustainability should not be just a conversation or creed, but sustainability by deed. It should be a fact of life. In everyday living, residents should be reducing, reusing, recycling and even upcycling. In my ward in 2019, we held a series of events at Old Holland neighbourhood aimed at reducing the use of plastics, especially single-use plastics. All the residents were encouraged to bring their own water bottles and no disposable cutlery was used at the event.

There are many other avenues and initiatives aimed at reducing use of plastic. The Bring Your Own or BYO Singapore movement encourages consumers to bring their own reusable bags, bottles and containers.

Mr Speaker, all these initiatives are in line with the vision of biophilia and I would like to share how this has manifested in Ulu Pandan, which brings me to my third and last point.

Mr Speaker, Ulu Pandan is privileged to have much greenery within its surroundings that makes it appropriately placed to envision what a sustainability community can look like and support the wider national movement of sustainability. With Dover Forest, Clementi Forest and the Rail Corridor all within the area, these ecological assets have produced great biodiversity value to Ulu Pandan residents, especially during the pandemic.

During these past few months, when everyone had to work from home and stay indoors a lot more, many people felt a nature deficit for a prolonged period which led to greater appreciation of our forests and parks.

I might note that when the news that Dover Forest might be developed to build BTO flats, I received many emails, dozens and dozens of emails and Facebook messages and WhatsApp and in conversations, person to person conversation at Meet-the-People Session, from residents expressing their concern at the loss of the forest. So, following my discussion with MND, I am very happy that Minister Desmond Lee has extended the deadline for public feedback to the Environmental Based Study by a full four weeks. I am very appreciative of that and I will go into more detail in my Motion.

In fact, residents pointed out how they appreciated the privilege of being able to enjoy the forest alongside the various plant and animal species that reside in there. Residents even sent me pictures of migratory eagles, allegedly from Russia and Japan who had sought shelter in Dover Forest during the wintry season.

Mr Speaker, my hope is to transform Ulu Pandan into a nature-surplus neighbourhood. As we intensify the use of our land to fit our growing population, it is similarly important to continue providing access to nature for our residents so as to counter a nature deficit.

Let me give you an illustration. One aspiration I have for Ulu Pandan is to partner with NParks in building a nature trail from Holland Green Linear Park that will weave its wave through the contours of Clementi Forest all the way to Clementi Road. This will not only create a link between the estates along Sixth Avenue and Greenleaf to Sunset Way, but allow the residents in this area to have a convenient way into Clementi Forest.

This is not the only on-going partnership. We are working with SFA and HDB to explore the possibilities of urban farming sites. A commercial operator would run the farm, but allow the community to be a part of it as we revamp community gardens to include growing more edible vegetables, fruits through hydroponics. Furthermore, in partnership with NEA, we can introduce food composting to the community and we plan to introduce that to Ghim Moh Market and Food Centre.

In conclusion, Sir, even as we continue to develop and grow this country, let us advance the legacy of investing into the nature around us and encouraging sustainability as a fact of life so that we may do our part in domestic and regional urban sustainability.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

3.46 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. For a low-lying island nation like ours, climate change is an existential threat. At the global scale, when the Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015, nations around the world came together with the aim of limiting global warming to 1.5-degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels with an understanding that a two-degree Celsius rise would lead to major environmental risks. In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that: one, we have already reached warming of one-degree Celsius; two, that we are likely to reach 1.5-degree Celsius between 2030 and 2052; and three, that a slate of worrying impacts involving changes to sea level, temperature and rainfall will still be experienced by 2100 even if warming is limited to 1.5-degree Celsius.

At the local scale, these changes will cause significant problems for Singapore. Sea level rise, threats to our water and food security, and an increased risk of vector-borne diseases are but a few of these impacts. The magnitude of these impacts will depend on how global emissions evolve, the influence of regional factors, and, ultimately, whether we can rise to the challenge of doing our part to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Addressing this challenge will require us to acknowledge the urgency of the threats before us and to empower multiple stakeholders – from businesses and the public, to civil society including academia and NGOs – to come together to respond to the threat of climate change.

On this note, with your permission Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg leave to introduce an amendment to the Motion before the House.

Mr Speaker: Have you written the amendments?

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Yes, I have, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You can proceed with your speech first while we check your amendments.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I beg to move the following amendments:

(1) In line 2, after the words “That this House” to insert the words “acknowledges a climate emergency and”;

(2) In line 2, after the words “private sector” to insert a comma and the words “civil society”.

With your permission, Sir, I wish to explain the rationale for these amendments which the Workers’ Party is proposing today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers’ Party calls on this House to declare a climate emergency and bring to bear the necessary tools to respond to it. As we have heard from the Members who have brought the Motion to the House today, so far, I am hopeful that there is common understanding of the seriousness of the threats posed by climate change on both sides of this Chamber. Declaring a climate emergency on top of the original Motion will send a clear signal to Singaporeans and the world that our nation is committed to seriously addressing one of the most long-term threats we face in the 21st century.

For Singapore, two consequences of climate change stand out. The first is an increase in how variable and unpredictable our weather may become. Singaporeans will remember very well the period of intense rainfall we experienced in the first half of January this year, the second wettest January since records began in 1869. While it would be incorrect to assume that these downpours were direct evidence of climate change, the increased frequency of intense rainfall may emerge as a very real consequence of a changing climate in Singapore over longer scales of time. Thus, what happened in January may have been a foreshadowing of future costs we will have to bear – the cost of floods, of mudslides and landslides, and of potholes. These costs, in both monetary terms and in terms of the cost to human safety, will add up over the decades. Simultaneously, we are also warned that droughts may become more frequent. What could this mean for our water security as the supplies of water from our local catchments as well as from catchments which supply our imported water decrease?

Another consequence of climate change for Singapore is, of course, sea level rise. With 30% of our land lying within 15 metres above mean sea level, sea level rise in the longer term could inundate low-lying areas including neighbourhoods, vital industrial areas and parts of the Central Business District.

Last year, I mentioned in the House that even under an optimistic emissions scenario, sea level in Singapore could rise by half a metre by 2100. However, there is still uncertainty regarding this figure. Studies also suggest that IPCC projections for global mean sea level rise by 2100 tend to be conservative, where high emissions scenarios are concerned.

This is why we need to continue investing in research to better project sea level rise in Singapore. We should also think about the kind of planning principles we should aim for in adapting to sea level rise. As we consider different options such as the building of extensive polders as well as other coastal management measures such as nature-based solutions, we must seriously consider all options on the table together with all stakeholders.

In my supplementary Budget Debate speech in October 2020, I said that, even as the Government tackle the effects of COVID on our economy, we must concurrently work on our efforts to address the climate emergency. I took the opportunity to ask the Government for an update on our efforts since the Unity Budget, and for an assurance that Singapore is on track to meet our goals and timelines for the Paris Agreement. No answer was given then. Today, I would like to repeat my call to the Government to provide the House with an update on our efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

I would also like to ask how we are working with other countries, especially our ASEAN neighbours, to curb global emissions.

With major investments in adaptation strategies forthcoming and because the full force of climate change has not been felt by Singaporeans yet and may thus seem intangible today, it will be important to foster public buy-in and support for these efforts. Hence, before it is too late for the world to limit warming to 1.5-degree Celsius and for us in Singapore to plan our adaptation strategies robustly, a crucial first step is to recognise climate change as the emergency that it is. I hope Members will agree with me that this is an important step by which the Motion today can be strengthened.

While declaring a climate emergency will send a clear collective signal, it is not enough. Because we must act. The impacts of climate change are complicated and will be felt across our country, by our biodiversity and by our people too. People of all socio-economic backgrounds, including those who may find some policy adjustments more difficult to cope with than others.

It is for this reason that we need to work together with multiple stakeholders to chart the future of our sustainable development. This brings me to the second part of the amendment we are proposing. The Motion introduced by the respective PAP Members today calls on the Government to work with the private sector and the people of Singapore to respond to climate change. The purpose of our amendment is to include civil society in this call. The pivotal role that civil society stakeholders such as academics and NGOs have played and will continue to play in guiding our response to climate change cannot be understated.

To illustrate this point and to argue for how we need to truly embrace sustainability in Singapore, I wish to draw the House’s attention to the example of the conservation of our forested areas.

Forested spaces play a critical role in our response to climate change. Their vegetation and sediments act as carbon sinks, thus helping to mitigate a rise in greenhouse gas emissions. They also help to cool our urban environment – meaning a decrease in forest cover will worsen the urban heat island effect in various parts of our city-state, thereby adding to the threat of rising temperatures due to climate change on our future urban liveability. We know that forests play these important roles thanks to research by academics in Singapore.

Of recent interest has been the zoning of two secondary forests – Clementi Forest and Dover Forest – for residential development. The benefits of developing housing are obvious, and these benefits are ones that we should not write off in principle. But we must also commit to seriously assessing the cost of clearing our natural capital. While it may be tempting to think of planting new trees elsewhere to mitigate these losses, we must remember that we are talking about the loss of benefits derived from centuries if not millennia of carbon accumulation and decades of forest regrowth which make it possible for forests to carry out the functions I mentioned earlier. This natural heritage is one that we relinquish at our peril.

Today, we live in an urban landscape where primary forests cover only approximately 0.28% of our area and where less than 20.2% is covered by vegetation that is not dominated by human management, although with varying degrees of protection under the law. That we even have some of these green spaces left is due to our vibrant civil society consisting of academics, NGOs such as the Nature Society and passionate individuals. They are surveyors of our eco-systems and stewards of our environment, many of whom engage in public education. It is due to their decades of commitment – not without significant pushback from the state in the past – that we have such areas as Sungei Buloh and Chek Jawa intact.

Today, our diverse community of academics and activists, both seasoned and young, have given us a better understanding of the value of many other areas including Clementi and Dover Forests. Thus, I hope the House will support our amendment to recognise the role of these civil society stakeholders who must remain key partners in the Government’s efforts to address climate change.

Even as the Government continues to engage various stakeholders, not least because of the large degree of influence the State has on land use planning, the onus is on the Government to better protect green spaces in the fight against climate change. In response to my Parliamentary Question on the status of Clementi Forest in January this year, the Government claimed that the zoning of the site for residential use will be retained, while giving our future generations the option of deciding whether to use it for housing, if the need arises.

But if we continue to operate with the assumption that we can always free up more forests or indeed coastal eco-systems for infrastructural development, we will run the risk of relying on a land use planning paradigm that is far more inefficient and short-sighted than the Government may wish to recognise. I wish to propose the following steps we can take to better plan our land use with the aim of sustainably developing Singapore.

Firstly, track and publish changes in land use areas in Singapore on a biennial basis. This can be done relatively cheaply with the use of high-resolution satellite imagery and geographical information systems (GIS).

Secondly, re-assess plans for existing forested areas by taking into account the full costs of development. To do this, environmental impact assessments should be conducted in a more transparent manner, engaging multiple stakeholders, including the public, during the process.

Thirdly, provide more secondary forests with greater protection under the law. A portion of these areas could be afforded greater protection, similar to those in nature reserves, while others could be regulated under the different regime to enable Singaporeans to benefit from simpler recreational activities which are less destructive in nature.

If we fail to take bolder steps to safeguard our forested areas and if we fail to improve our land use planning in non-forested areas today, we will leave our future generation to the landscape deprived of enough areas to even consider conserving and perhaps more worryingly, we will leave them with the mindset that tomorrow's problems are for tomorrow's generations to solve.

Mr Speaker Sir, as we seek to address one of the most major threat Singapore faces today, we, in the Workers' Party believe that we need to rethink our notions on what sustainable development should truly mean as we move into the future – a future where we do not see development and sustainability as two opposing outcomes, a future where sustainability is embraced by all sectors of the economy and a future where all Singaporeans know and feel that all of us have a stake in co-creating a stronger response to the emergency, that is climate change.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my fellow Workers' Party Members of Parliament will further elaborate on why the Workers' Party is proposing the amendments to the Motion, for which I beg to move.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as amendments:

"(1) In line 2, after the words, 'That this House', to insert the words 'acknowledges a climate emergency and'; and

(2) In line 2 after the words, 'private sector', to insert a comma and the words 'civil society'."

It may be convenient that the debate on the Original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single question. Do I have hon Members' agreement on this?

Hon Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." Mr Seah Kian Peng.

4.02 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion put forth by my fellow Member of Parliament, Mr Louis Ng.

Climate change requires collective action. All of us acting in concert, with resolution and most importantly, with wide agreement on the sorts of policy and behaviour that we must all adopt. As we have seen in the current pandemic, even in matters of life and death there is sometimes room for non-compliance, for ways to "get around", learning how to bend, if not break the rules. So, why do we do this?

Public health is a funny creature of collective action. It requires all of us to play our part and together we benefit. It is vulnerable too – if the few do not comply, the many suffer. And because it is a matter of health, we sometimes pay the highest price. And yet – people disregard this cost – because they think they are not the ones to pay it. Because of this lack of direct link between the cause of harm and the final person who bears the burden, public health outcomes require strong regulatory intervention and social pressures.

The environment is another peculiar sort of creature of collective action. It is what we would call a "common pool resource" – a sort of thing which everyone extracts benefits from, with almost no cost, but whose value is degraded with each use. Unlike a pandemic, however, this creature is even more vulnerable because its voice is very, very soft. The price too is high but paid in generations, so each one does not think of the final tally. The harm too is great, but borne uneven – so that even as some die because of air pollution, others live in air-conditioned comfort. And so, power and justice come apart.

Climate change is an important and significant issue confronting Singapore today, and it has become trite to use the word "existential" when it comes to the narrative in this House. Everything – because we are small – becomes a matter of life and death. Each Minister and each Member of Parliament, in our wards and constituencies, we have natural and understandable instincts to speak loudest, and feel strongest, about our own place and cause. But as a country, we must decide as a whole, what things are most important.

Singapore's Total Defence was conceptualised in 1984 to underscore the importance of a whole-of-society approach to national security. The message was simple and clear; everyone has a part to play in protecting Singapore from internal and external threats. Up till 2019, Total Defence comprised five pillars. Digital Defence was subsequently added as a sixth pillar, a move that rightly reflected the need for Singaporeans to be aware and better equipped to handle online threats to Singapore society such as fake news.

And so, today, our six pillars of Total Defence are: military, civil, economic, social, digital and psychological defence.

Psychological Defence refers to our mind – each person's commitment to and confidence in the nation's future. Social Defence to our links with each other – in harmony and with a strong idea of our common interests. Economic Defence is about jobs – Government, business and industry working all working together for joint prosperity.

Digital Defence, Civil Defence and Military Defence are three rings of national security, making sure all of us are defending our key interests in cyberspace, in emergencies and in times of war.

Today, I am asking this House to consider adding another pillar – Climate Defence. I supported this call during last year's Committee of Supply debate and continue to support it because I believe that it is an important step in Singapore's fight against climate change. There are three reasons: the first, because it is like all six other pillars; the second and third reasons, because it is so different.

Like other types of threats that Singapore face, climate change and its associated effects such as rising sea levels pose clear and high-risk threats towards the well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as our way of life. This is seen in the 2019 National Day Rally where the Prime Minister, let me quote him – he said, "we should treat climate change defences like we treat the SAF – with utmost seriousness". So, it is quite clear that Prime Minister already then identified it as a climate emergency.

Unlike threats such as terrorism, war and the current pandemic, climate change and environmental disasters do not have high salience. In fact, these issues face a perfect storm – low salience, high blame avoidance and very little chance for credit claiming. In addition, each person would feel that his own effort would probably not move the needle.

Hence, many Singaporeans do not have climate change in the foreground issue and do not incorporate Climate Defence in their psyche. Placing climate change as a seventh pillar will give it priority and urgency. As a pillar of Total Defence, Climate Defence will be placed on the same pedestal as other threats. This sends a clear message to all Singaporeans about the importance of tackling climate change and how it should be a priority. More importantly, it underscores how a whole-of-society approach is needed to combat climate change and this leads me to the second significance.

Another reason again, one which distinguishes climate change from other pillars – is that it is not defence against any specific threat such as a malicious foreign actors, economic crises or cyber attackers. Rather, it is a defence against inexorable, environmental degradation that we can all play a part to fix.

Climate change, like other threats, will affect all Singaporeans. But the good news is that everyone can also do their part to combat it, instead of solely relying on the Government. While seemingly small, individual actions can add to substantial contributions towards Singapore's fight against climate change. Reducing individual consumption and wastage is one such way. We can all make a conscious effort to reduce food waste as well as our plastic waste, of which the latter is unfortunately experiencing an increase, in my opinion, because of COVID-19 and shift towards e-commerce. Individuals are in a position to also set their own environmental targets and evaluate their lifestyles to see if they have achieved what they set out to do.

As what Mr Louis Ng had said earlier, as a signatory to the Paris Climate Agreement, Singapore has demonstrated that despite being a small country, it has an interest in combating climate change and is very much committed to doing so. A common perception amongst many people is that Singapore is a small country and any action taken will not have a significant effect on climate change.

But, if every country thinks this way, then nothing will be done. The consequences of that are unimaginable. By adopting Climate Defence as a pillar of Total Defence, it demonstrates that Singapore is a responsible member of the international community with regards to climate change and can be trusted to adhere to the goals set under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, being the seventh pillar of Total Defence entails a more organised, more deliberate and strategic approach by the Government to its climate adaptation and mitigation policies. Just as important is that these policies and strategies must be communicated well to the public. That would mean a targeted approach to communications, with usage of different mediums and content for different age demographics.

There should also be a focus on education as a way to facilitate and inculcate long-term behavioural change. The emphasis should be on promoting sustainable behaviour, particularly with regards to the 3Rs – Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. The notion of environmental stewardship should also be underscored where we have a responsibility to the next generation to leave them a society that is better than the one we inherited. This can be done by fostering in our young ones a connection with the natural environment.

This Motion proposed by Mr Louis Ng has already consulted, in the course of the year, several groups of people – different parts of the civil society. I would also greatly like to acknowledge the good work that Mr Louis Ng and his team have put in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, making the climate our seventh pillar cannot be the old "green" message in new bottles. Aside from behavioural nudges, there must be resolution towards new laws and regulations; there must be a new willingness to make the market work for the environment, there must be more will, more attention and more resources.

The Government has already said that it is committed to working on the mitigation measures against climate change. But that is not enough. We need every one of us to do so too. Let us make Climate Defence the seventh pillar of our Total Defence.

4.13 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion to accelerate and deepen efforts against climate change, as proposed by Member and fellow Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) colleague, Mr Louis Ng.

Singapore is one of the signatories to the Paris Agreement on climate change. For the first time, all nations will combat climate change as a common cause. Unfortunately, even with such a landmark agreement in place, global efforts to slow down the rate of global warming are still uneven and inadequate. Climate change will cause droughts, global warming, resulting in the reduction of cold days and increase in heat waves and glacier meltdown. These impacts will inevitably affect the social and economic structures across the globe.

Be that as it may, people are not motivated to address climate change consciously. Climate change involves circumstances that make it hard for people to be persuaded as there are short-term benefits to both individuals and corporations. Adjustments are the hardest trade-off for people to make. It is not difficult to tell someone that climate change is affecting the world, but it is expectedly difficult to make changes when it affects an individual's habitual lifestyle.

Climate change requires social transformation. It requires a mindset change and everyone taking ownership. It requires every individual's participation. Going green is a collective responsibility. We should always try to replace our daily activities with greener alternatives, even if that means some inconveniences to reduce consumption. It is about every individual taking concrete steps towards the 3Rs – reduce, re-use and recycle.

In Sembawang West, my volunteers and I have started a community programme to encourage our residents to embrace sustainability. The programme includes recycling initiatives for the community and distribution of rescued fruits and vegetables to low-income families. We hope to increase awareness, change mindset and motivate residents to adopt green habits through these ground-up efforts. Over time, we have to be as green as the Scandinavian countries where an environmentally friendly lifestyle is already deeply ingrained throughout the Nordic societies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Member Mr Dennis Tan proposes to insert the words "civil society" after "private sector" in the Motion.

I agree with Mr Tan that the green activists and the civil society have played an important role in pushing the efforts to combat climate change. In fact, in the last one-and-a-half years, the YP has been involving many green activists and groups from the civil society in their public consultation work. Many of the proposals and views were included in the YP paper entitled "Singapore; the Green Hub" and including the point on improving carbon efficiency.

Let us talk a little about improving carbon efficiency. I was surprised to discover that concrete using Portland-based cement releases almost a tonne of carbon dioxide for every tonne of cement produced.

Concrete is widely used in the construction process. By weight, it is used more widely than steel, wood, plastics and aluminum combined. Embodied carbon will be responsible for half of the entire carbon footprint of new construction developments between now and 2050, threatening to consume a large part of our remaining carbon budget.

In Singapore, 82% of our land is used for built-up areas, for residential and commercial buildings and for public infrastructure. Given the fact that most of our buildings are high-rise, the concrete usage density is extremely high. The Government and private businesses have to look towards implementing rigorous green legislation and change industry standards and business processes, especially within the construction industry where new buildings must be designed to be more carbon efficient. We should set our 2050 carbon emissions goal for all new buildings, infrastructure and renovations to be net zero operational carbon.

So, how can we reduce carbon footprint in our new buildings?

I am an employee of Changi Airport Group and involved in the planning for development projects, including Terminal 4 and Terminal 5. My own experience in the built environment started almost a decade ago in 2012 when I was responsible for the closing and demolition of the Budget Terminal in Changi Airport, to make way for Terminal 4. We moved re-useable furniture and equipment, including transporting the rooftop solar-panel, to the other terminals. The demolition contractor then salvaged the building materials, such as steel parts and concrete, and traded in these materials in the recycled materials market. In the end, we even managed to recover some cost after paying off the demolition expenses. From there, we went on to design and build Terminal 4. In the process, I learnt about the BCA Green Mark Scheme. We incorporated many green and eco-friendly features which earned Terminal 4 a BCA Green Mark Gold Plus Award.

The BCA Green Mark Scheme was launched in January 2005. This green building rating system provides a comprehensive framework for assessing the overall environmental performance of new and existing buildings to promote sustainable design and best practices in construction and operations in buildings. The Green Mark scheme rates buildings according to five key criteria – energy efficiency, water efficiency, environmental protection, indoor environment quality and other green and innovative features that contribute to better building performance.

Over the last 16 years, the Green Mark Scheme has been widely adopted and more than 4,000 buildings in Singapore have earned the BCA Green Mark award. It is time to make some changes to the BCA Green Mark Scheme.

I would like to suggest the following.

One, to review construction regulations and standards, the Green Mark Scheme must encourage more use of recycled "green concrete", "pre-cast concrete and low-carbon concrete". Currently, the Green Mark Scheme includes carbon accounting. However, this scheme allocates only two out of 100 points for embodied carbon accounting. The assessment allows buildings to score highly despite performing poorly on certain measures of carbon intensiveness, which actually means buildings can be certified as Green Mark Silver, Gold, Platinum or Zero Energy despite being extremely concrete-intensive. This is not good.

Green Mark can better achieve its goal of encouraging carbon-efficient construction by ensuring the Concrete Usage Index as a mandatory criterion.

For existing buildings to be greener, projects undergoing addition and alteration ought to account for lower concrete usage. Designers and owners can consider the use of sustainable materials from carbon-aware manufacturers and vendors.

When it comes to demolition work, under the Green Mark Scheme, one point is awarded if 35% of demolished concrete, is handled by a recycling contractor. This proportion should be raised to encourage more recycling. And recycled concrete can also be brought back to construction site for non-structural use.

Two, adopt environmentally friendly design approaches, materials and technologies. We should allocate a higher score for the adoption of environmentally friendly designs. With creative designs, technological innovation and advancements in material engineering, such green buildings will be more common in the future.

A prominent example would be the NUS School of Design and Engineering Blk 4,or commonly known as SDE4. That was designed by NUS Design and Environment, in partnership with external consultants, developers and builders. It is the first building in Southeast Asia to be awarded the Zero Energy Certification by the International Living Future Institute, which is one of the world's most prestigious sustainability organisations. Two key features of SDE4 are a large overhanging roof which hosts more than 1,200 photovoltaic panels to harness solar energy to meet the energy demands of the building and also an innovative hybrid cooling system to effectively manage the building's energy consumption by supplying 100% fresh pre-cooled air, albeit at higher temperatures and humidity levels than in a conventional system.

Other examples of successful green concepts encapsulated in the building designs include CapitaGreen, Park Royal on Pickering, Oasia Hotel, Kampung Admiralty, Bukit Canberra and Woodlands Healthcare Campus, just to name a few.

Three, introduce an incentive system to offset the higher construction costs. The billion-dollar question is: who should be paying for higher building costs of environmentally friendly buildings? Most billion and multi-millionaires developers will ask: what incentives will I get to accelerate change? They will claim that they do not directly benefit from the lower carbon footprint.

But the fact is whether you are a developer or a potential property buyer, you must be informed that if our environment is ever destroyed, no one escapes this catastrophe. We cannot continue to shape policies and develop our country with a narrow view that is heavily weighed on cost and benefit analysis. The higher costs incurred today is a worthwhile investment to safeguard our future. I would like to reiterate the rationale highlighted at the start of this speech. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, whether it is the Government or the private sector, everyone must be prepared to go green.

I agree that the Government will have to take the lead by reviewing the current incentive and tax system in the building industry in order to encourage the private sector to play its part.

An example of an incentive could be creating a circular financing scheme, by way of grants awarded to developers from a central pool of carbon taxes collected from within the building industry. This collection could offset the higher costs for green buildings.

And on the supply side, if the demand for eco-friendly building materials, furniture and engineering systems increase, the unit cost will drop over time. And with this new equilibrium, the market will then be able to support itself with higher demand and lower cost. We can then discontinue the carbon efficiency grant over time.

These are my suggestions. They are non-exhaustive and I hope the key industry stakeholders, such as Singapore Green Building Council, architecture firms and construction firms will continue to work together to refine the Green Mark Scheme and make it compulsory for all new developments. The Green Mark Scheme can be our identity to embrace sustainability.

I hope BCA and the Singapore Green Building Council, who are co-leading the creation of the next Singapore Green Building Masterplan would consider the proposals I mentioned.

Everyone must do his or her part to expedite and deepen efforts against climate change. We must all embrace sustainability. The future will always be uncertain but we must face the uncertainty of the future head-on by not being selfish and making a change in our attitudes today. Mr Speaker, Sir, once again, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.26 pm until 4.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.45 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Accelerate and deepen efforts against climate change

(Motion)

Debate resumed.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Motion first raised by Member Louis Ng "To accelerate and deepen efforts against climate change" is an urgent one, as we make a decision on how we want to rebuild our economy and what kind of an economy we envisage for Singapore in future. Just recently, at the Climate Ambition Summit 2020, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all governments to declare a state of climate emergency. Our Government has also acknowledged the threat of climate change and put in place a number of strategies to tackle this global issue. But are we doing enough as a nation? Are we acknowledging the climate emergency for what it is?

In March 2020, Singapore submitted an updated Nationally Determined Contribution to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). While we previously committed to reduce our Emissions Intensity levels on a per dollar of GDP basis, the new NDC adopts an absolute emissions target instead. This is a step forward as it provides greater transparency and reinforces the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change.

However, when we take a closer look at the updated target, how much has actually changed?

The first NDC, submitted in 2015, stated our intention to reduce emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and this will imply emissions at around 65 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) with the aim of peaking around 2030. Similarly, the updated NDC reiterates that Singapore intends to peak emissions at 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission around 2030, and only reach net-zero emissions “as soon as viable” in the second half of the century. While we now have an absolute emissions target, this absolute figure of 65 MtCO2e is actually equivalent to the 36% reduction in Emissions Intensity from 2005 levels by 2030 and, hence, it is the exact same target that was set back in 2015.

To put it bluntly, the updated target does not genuinely limit emissions growth today beyond what was already committed to under our first NDC. I recognise that the Government is targeting 33 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, which is half that of the 65 million tonnes around 2030. As a nation, Singapore’s climate targets still fall short of IPCC’s recommendations to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. In contrast, the European Union, Japan and the Republic of Korea have pledged carbon neutrality by 2050, along with more than 110 other countries. Even China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is pledging to reach carbon neutrality by 2060.

Even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. We can, should and must do more. In view of this, I would like to propose four specific areas for improvement to reflect our nation’s commitment to tackling climate change.

Firstly, we need to set more ambitious targets in growing our renewable energy mix. According to statistics from Singapore’s Energy Market Authority, as at July 2020, 96% of our electricity in Singapore is produced from natural gas, 1.2% is from coal and petroleum products and 2.8% is from other sources, including solar. I recognise that there are significant challenges to deploying solar on a large scale in Singapore, including land constraints and local weather conditions. Yet, we were still able to punctually achieve our 2020 solar deployment target of 350 megawatt-peak in the first quarter of 2020, reaching 1.5 gigawatt-peak by 2025 and at least 2 gigawatt-peak by 2030. Solar, however, is only expected to contribute 3% of our electricity needs. Are we genuinely pushing the boundaries, or simply setting benchmarks we can easily hit?

Earlier, in January this year, I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry on whether we have a target mix for the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources in 2030 and 2050, and if we would consider setting a target mix that we can strive for together as a nation. However, I do not recall such a target being shared. The Workers’ Party previously called for a minimum of 10% of Singapore’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2025. The IEA also estimates that 30% of electricity generation globally in 2020 is already from renewable sources. A starting point for us then is having a target in the first place.

Secondly, the carbon tax is another area with much potential for impact. To put it simply, the IMF has described carbon pricing as the “single most powerful” way to combat climate change. It is commendable that Singapore implemented a carbon tax in 2019, the first nation in Southeast Asia to do so. But the current rate of $5/tCO2e, however, is too nominal, sitting far below global scientific recommendations.

I fully recognise that this is a sensitive period to be raising the carbon tax and also note the Government’s plans to review the tax rate by 2023, and increase it to between $10/tCO2e and $15/tCO2e by 2030. As Member Louis Ng said earlier in his speech, this is far too low. I urge the Government to adopt a carbon price trajectory that is better aligned with the latest research on what is effective. It should also be complemented by financial assistance schemes to help cushion the impact of the carbon tax for lower income households.

Thirdly, Singapore’s refining and petrochemical sector remains an elephant in the room in our discussions on climate change. In 2017, about 75% of our industrial emissions were from this sector. There is, therefore, an urgent need to consider the role such industries will play in the Singapore economy of 2050 and beyond.

Already, we are starting to see key players restructure and pivot towards cleaner energy sources, particularly in the wake of COVID-19's impact on energy demand and prices. Both Shell and BP have set ambitious targets of becoming a net-zero emissions company by 2050. Shell is investing in more lower carbon technology while expanding its renewable energy and power division. Thus far, the Government has been advocating for a practical approach, a realistic approach towards the petrochemical industry, given that it is a key employer and a key contributor to our economy today.

However, we are already seeing signs of the practical changes oil majors are making today, in preparing for their companies’ realistic future. In June 2020, BP announced it is cutting 10,000 jobs or 15% of its workforce. In October 2020, ExxonMobil announced it is cutting 14,000 jobs globally, 15% of its workforce. Closer to home, Shell is targeting to cut 500 jobs by 2023 at Pulau Bukom from the current 1,300 staff today, and with refining capacity halved in the next one to two years.

Given Singapore’s position as a leading oil and gas hub in Asia, it is inevitable that such changes will impact our economy. Yet, should our focus still remain on the old economy industries of the past? With oil majors pivoting away from fossil fuels, should Singapore not proactively engage these companies, to partner them on their journey to a net-zero future? How can we accelerate the restructuring of our economy to be better prepared for a low-carbon future which is fast approaching?

This brings me to my fourth and final point, on Singapore’s potential to successfully drive the green revolution, if we genuinely commit to accelerating our efforts on this front. This is not the first time we are breaking new ground for Singapore. Shell built an oil refinery on Pulau Bukom in 1961 and it was the first foreign investor to receive Singapore’s Pioneer Certificate Number 1 for its investment. A small island to the south of Singapore became one of the largest refinery complexes globally and sparked the start of Singapore’s pursuit of the petrochemicals industry.

While the sun is setting for fossil fuels, the time has come for a new period of rapid development in the clean energy industry. Minister Masagos previously said in 2018 that the clean energy industry will add as many as 2.2 million jobs in Southeast Asia by 2030.

Looking at global trends, this number will only continue to grow. To keep pace, we must continue to upsize the green industry and ensure our workforce is prepared to take on these new roles. I highly commend the recent move to boost training and recruitment of local talents in the solar industries, and urge the relevant agencies to expand and extend this commitment to other green industries as well. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, even as a small island-state, Singapore has always been daring in our vision for the future. Climate change should be no different. Upon the 5th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged all governments to declare a state of climate emergency until carbon neutrality is achieved at the Climate Ambition Summit 2020. We should not only acknowledge this state of climate emergency, we can, should, and must do more. In view of this, I would like to propose four specific areas for improvement to reflect our nation’s commitment to tackling climate change.

Firstly, we need to set more ambitious targets in growing our renewable energy mix. The Workers’ Party previously called for a minimum of 10% Singapore’s energy to come from renewable resources by 2025.

Secondly, the carbon tax is another area with much potential for impact. I urge the Government to adopt a carbon price trajectory that is better aligned with the latest research on what is effective. This should also be complemented by financial assistance schemes to help cushion the impact of the carbon tax for lower income households.

Thirdly, when it comes to Singapore’s specific measures in tackling climate change, the refining and petrochemical sector remains an elephant in the room. In 2017, about 75% of our industrial emissions were from this sector. There is therefore an urgent need to consider the role such industries will play in the Singapore economy of 2050 and beyond. How can we accelerate the restructuring of our economy to be better prepared for a low-carbon future, which is fast approaching?

Lastly, to keep pace, we must continue to upsize the green industry and ensure our workforce is prepared to take on these new roles.

Mr Speaker, Singapore still has much room for improvement in our efforts to tackle climate change, and the very first step is to recognise the climate emergency for what it is today. Rather than seeing this as an obstacle to economic growth and progress, instead, it should be viewed as an investment into future developments.

Building a zero-carbon economy is a critical pathway to more resilient economic growth in the long run – a fact that is increasingly recognised by governments and corporations around the world. Temasek, for instance, has committed to delivering a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050. As a nation, let us challenge ourselves to push the boundaries further, to set the bar higher for the sake of our children, and to be more courageous in our collective fight against the threat of climate change.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in conclusion, Singapore still has much room for improvement in our efforts to tackle climate change and the very first step is to recognise the climate emergency for what it is today. Yet, the beauty of it is that these changes need not come at the expense of economic growth and progress, but should instead be viewed as an investment into the industries of the future. The UK’s Climate Change Committee has concluded that despite there being an overall cost in bringing about the technologies to reduce carbon emissions, there is an increase in economic prosperity in terms of an aggregate increase in GDP, jobs and real disposable incomes.

Building a zero-carbon economy is a critical pathway to more resilient economic growth in the long run – a fact that is increasingly recognised by governments and corporations around the world. Even Temasek, for instance, has committed to delivering a net-zero emissions portfolio by 2050. As a nation, let us challenge ourselves to push the boundaries further to not be afraid to set the bar higher for the sake of our children and to be more courageous in our collective fight against the existential threat of climate change. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

4.59 pm

The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask Member Mr Louis Chua two supplementary questions.

First of all, it is on carbon tax. I appreciate his point about the current tax level being low and we should raise it further. I would just like to know if he has specific targets or specific carbon tax that he thinks the Workers' Party would like to propose.

Number two, he has drawn comparison with Japan, Korea and China, which have announced carbon-neutral targets. I would like to, again, seek Mr Louis Chua's explanation if there are any specific proposals or actions that these countries would adopt in order to reach these goals that Singapore has not considered.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: I thank the Minister for her supplementary questions. I think for the first question on the cabon tax, as mentioned by Member Louis Ng as well, the current carbon tax level is far too low and I would not want to pre-empt my colleague who will be speaking on this further. But I would say that, at this point in time, if you look at the Government's plan to review the tax rate by 2023, I think the $10 to $15 level is a level we believe – and I believe that Member Louis Ng has also agreed that it is inadequate. I will leave it to my colleague, Jamus, who will be speaking a bit further on what we do propose to be the levels of the carbon tax.

On the second question in terms of what some of these other developed countries have done that we have not already done, I think this is a continuum. This is a continued progress. To me, the very first step is, as I have mentioned in my speech, that we have to set ourselves a bold target. If you just look at the energy mix, for example, I think that is one starting point which we could consider to reduce our reliance on, basically, fossil fuel sources for energy. I think that is one way where we can start to set the target for what is the level of energy generation from renewable sources that we would like to consider. This is something which we have to start with the end goal in mind in terms of potentially reaching net-zero much earlier rather than later.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: I thank the Member for the clarification. The reason for me to ask the clarification in the first place is in order to understand if that proposal to be like Japan, Korea and China has been formed with the national context, our local Singapore context, in mind, because, like all countries, we have our own constraints. We have our own opportunities to move towards renewable energy. So, it is important that, when we set policies and when we advocate targets here, even as we want to be ambitious, even if we want to be pathfinding, it is important to have that understanding and that realisation behind. So, that is the purpose of my clarification. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua, do you want to respond? You do not have to.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: I thank the Minister for the response. So, again, if we just use our energy sources, I do recognise that we have geographical constraints. And even in the use of solar energy, for example, we have set a target to reach 2 GWps by 2030. But is there more that we could do to basically bring this number higher? I think in the last sitting in January, some of the Members have also asked about this question.

I also understand that certain projects are basically in the pipeline in terms of potentially importing solar energy from our neighbours, or even from Australia, in terms of the project that is on-going there. I believe there are various technological pathways through which we can achieve some of these targets. But this is where, in the first place, for us to be able to recognise this climate emergency and to basically set ourselves a bit more of an ambitious target, given that Singapore has always had this history of outperforming its original expectations.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

5.05 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, generations have been categorised by the technological advancements of their time, and also the crises and social issues that challenged the values and shaped their growing years. In the past year, we had talked about children born last year as "Coronials" and "Quaranteens". But other than COVID-19, a longer term issue which also has implications on survival and economic viability that is top of mind for many in my generation is climate change.

Today, we know that climate change is more expansive than the environment and is entangled in our socio-economic system at large; it is not a single-issue concern. Finding and implementing solutions to climate change involve complex trade-offs, and the world we live in today has entrenched barriers. The trans-boundary nature of climate change also requires global action. Singapore cannot go at this alone. And if we truly want to move the needle, we need to strengthen cooperation across countries and move together.

Social norms will not change on their own. We need to engage more heavily in climate change education. We also need to give people enough information to make informed decisions grounded in data.

Climate change solutions should be developed in a consultative manner, utilising nature-based solutions where possible. Singapore is nimble and can set an example, playing our part in the global community.

Here, in our island city state, we have felt the effects of climate change first-hand, such as warming temperatures, and increased levels in annual rainfall have caused ponding during the monsoon seasons, with the rains last month making it the wettest January we have had in 30 years.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice in support of the Motion today.

In focus-group discussions run by the Young PAP, participants expressed hopes that climate change and sustainability can be better interwoven into our national curriculum. While geography and science subjects do touch on these topics, the teaching can be piecemeal with little being said about the social justice element and economic impact of climate change in subjects, such as Social Studies or Character and Citizenship Education. Not all our students are equally equipped to discuss these issues and they continue to see people around them leading highly unsustainable lifestyles despite what they learn in textbooks.

Would the Government consider, first, to review the curriculum with sustainability as one of the core pillars of educational outcomes and, second, building responsible habits through a holistic approach so that it goes beyond a subject to a lifestyle? For example, in "A" Level economics, carbon policies can be discussed. In addition, the "O" Level Social Studies syllabus discusses a globalised world, but its key concepts and content sections do not meaningfully incorporate climate change.

Beyond the classroom, I am sure many of us remember the Young Scientist badges in Primary school. In recent times, the community behind the Singapore Blue Plan 2018 suggested the Young Marine Biologist Badge, and Temasek Foundation and the Science Centre of Singapore have also organised the Young Sustainability Champion Programme.

Our efforts in educating students about climate change must include hands-on approaches such as these. For example, more Values in Action projects can be jointly organised with community groups and civil society, such as Green Nudge, Zero Waste SG or the Forest School, so that students are empowered to contribute to the community and also get involved in systemic climate solutions. With the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment's announcement that more than 50,000 new and upgraded jobs will be created in the next 10 years for the sector. Education and career guidance counsellors can more actively introduce pathways related to climate solutions, such as sustainable finance or engineering in green technology. A whole-of-school approach would also be necessary, for example, the displaying of each cohort's trash to show the impact of their habits, or having a farm-to-table canteen.

We know that our students and our schools already run a variety of programmes, and our teachers and students have packed schedules. Climate change education is also an opportunity for schools to deepen partnerships with other organisations in the community, such as interest groups and advocates, who can come in to supplement climate change curriculum, and teachers and students can learn alongside each other together, leaning on green experts.

In December 2019, a poll on climate change perceptions by the National Climate Change Secretariat in Singapore revealed that over 90% of those polled were aware of climate change and its impact, and almost 80% were prepared to play their part towards a low-carbon Singapore. However, less than half of those polled said they knew what they could do to address it.

One of the reasons why environmental issues can feel foreign to us is because of its perceived intangibility. However, utilities bills and the My Carbon Footprint function by the SP Group are designed to help residential consumers better track and reduce their energy and water consumption, as well as their carbon footprint. It provides a comparison to the average consumption of neighbours in similar housing types within a block or a street in relation to landed homes. The publishing and accessibility of such information breaks down the information in a relatable and personal way for individuals.

Climate change solutions come not just from the Government, but also through public efforts, and I hope that more individuals take steps to actively understand their carbon footprint.

In driving corporate change, while previous suggestions to publish data have been met with responses that emissions data is confidential, could an alternative be to recognise and affirm low-emitters across different industries to incentivise positive behaviour?

Research has shown that younger buyers are more discerning consumers and Millennials and Generation Z have the spending power to influence the retail landscape through their purchasing decisions. A US Forbes 2019 report found that 62% of Generation Z, who were already in the workforce, prefer to buy from sustainable brands, and more than half of them stated that they were willing to spend more on such products.

Collective behavioural change can, ultimately, influence commercial decisions, and a generation of educated consumers can only make conscious consumption choices if they have the relevant information at hand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that nature already mitigates a significant portion of man-made greenhouse gas emissions: approximately a quarter of these emissions are absorbed by trees, plants and soil, while another quarter is absorbed into marine systems. If protected, sustainably managed and restored, nature has the power to do even more. In Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As a green and blue spaces enthusiast, I am saddened to see the change in the ocean's temperature which has affected several species of ocean life and caused the bleaching of coral reefs which previously filled the ocean with colour. We must raise awareness about the threat of climate change and how we, as a society, can take proactive steps to fight it.

We must explore nature-based solutions and invite the public to participate to fight climate change. For example, studies have shown that mangroves and sea grass meadows are able to store more carbon dioxide per hectare than any other forest types. The Government can explore such solutions and engage more members of our community to raise awareness and fight climate change.

(In English): Mr Speaker Sir, as a diver who loves our oceans, I have felt first-hand the difference in temperature in the water, seen certain species in areas where they should not be, and stared in dismay at white lifeless corals which were once alive with colour, when diving in the same place over the years. Climate change means warming oceans and rising sea levels, which poses a threat to reefs and marine life.

Beyond just the hard engineering of polders and seawalls, mangroves, sea grass meadows and corals can also be part of our defences against climate change. Research has shown that mangroves can store three to five times more carbon per hectare than other forest types, and sea grass meadows are up to 35 times better than rainforests at storing carbon.

Nature-based solutions also allow for more participatory development. The Sultan Shoal project in connection with the development at Tuas which commenced in 2013 was an example where an environmental impact study was done, public volunteers were engaged, and science, conservation, biodiversity and development needs were carefully considered together. As more Singaporeans are interested in the conservation of our blue and green spaces over the years, such consultative efforts, although requiring more coordination, will allow for wider public participation, so that more have a stake in our development, and better awareness.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some amendments to the Motion have been put forth for consideration before the House. I appreciate the multiple voices, both within and outside the House, on this important topic and hope that more will come forward with concrete proposals and solutions.

When we talk about climate change, the conversation often begins with us thinking about what kind of world we want to leave for our children and grandchildren. But in order to secure this, the time to act is now, and I urge the Government to accelerate and continue building on the good efforts which are in place in consultation with all stakeholders before it is too late.

5.16 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In preparation for today's speech, I have engaged in a series of dialogue sessions, both formal and informal ones, involving Young PAP activists, climate change advocates, green-living community leaders and my Woodgrove residents. I wish to take this opportunity to thank them for their active participation and their enthusiasm in advocating for a greener society.

In these dialogue sessions, a common theme was identified, which was similar to what Members of this House who have spoken ahead of me, have shared in this House, being the recognition of that climate change is a pressing issue. We have all in some way began to feel the impact it has caused to our environment in recent years, and there is a need for us to play a part in combating climate change.

While acknowledging the issue is a hopeful first step, the question remains: have we done enough? It is easy to say, "We can and we must do more." But, are we simply just expecting to rely on our Government to roll out more policies and initiatives, while trusting business organisations to do their part in reducing carbon emissions? The purpose of my PAP Member of Parliament colleagues who have put up this Motion today with me is that we are looking upon to explore what are the actual actions taken into account and local context that we can do bearing in mind the importance of three-piece collaborations together to combat climate change as a nation.

In Woodgrove, we have a G.E.L. Mission, where the "G" pertains to "Green Living Initiatives". We believe that as a community, we can do our part to combat climate change, beginning with a re-examination of our current lifestyle habits. Many residents have remarked that there is a need to increase awareness and the keenness to go green, as the present efforts in our day-to-day water, waste and energy saving actions are somewhat lacking due to the lack of understanding and the passion for doing so.

Take the blue recycle bins, for example. Meant for depositing recyclable items such as cardboards and bottles and glasses, they are more often than not, misused as common rubbish bins instead, usually due to the convenience of irresponsible dumping or a lack of proper recycling knowledge. All you need is one person to discard items containing food residue in them to cause the entire contents of the blue recycle bins to be contaminated and wastefully discarded.

Mr Speaker, I believe that if we are to truly encourage Green Living, we should aim to make sustainability a core component of our lifestyle. I must also emphasise that in order to make this a reality, as what I have emphasised earlier, we should collectively and continuously involve the efforts of our 3Ps: People, Private and Public sectors. In other words, this will require close mutual co-operation between the Government, Organisations and the Community. Organisations would of course include corporates, companies, VWOs and NGOs.

While the Government and private sectors can instate sweeping policies and provide the expertise or financial means to promote sustainability, the community also plays a vital role by getting together and through ground-up initiatives, encourage one another at a grassroots level.

The dialogue sessions that I have held with my residents in Woodgrove have left me optimistic and inspired for our future, as I discovered that many of them are willing to step up and offer their ideas to promote this cause. For example, a number of my Woodgrove residents like Mr Foo and Mdm SS, have commented that while they can understand why plastic bags may still be essential in Singapore – for example, for disposing of food waste through the garbage chute – they are convinced that Singaporeans can be encouraged to develop a habit of using their own reusable bags for shopping and refusing to take more plastic bags more than they need.

Suggestions by other Woodgrove residents also included, one, setting up more active recycling points within our community, partnering with Northwest CDCs and organisations such as Tzu Chi Singapore where eco-awareness and proper recycling tips can be shared with our residents; two, setting up a repair centre in the Residents Committee Centres, working with partners such as Repair Kopitiam. Under this initiative, we can collect rusted and abandoned bicycles lying around in the void decks of the neighbourhood, and send them to the repair centre for refurbishment. Once restored, they can be donated to needy children within our community for their further use.

Another of the more innovative suggestions I had received revolved around the use of technology to encourage habits that promote sustainable living. Wilson, another of my Woodgrove resident, shared that the Health 365 app has proven to be popular amongst him and his peers in promoting healthy lifestyle, encouraging more people to stay active through recording progression and reward-based incentives.

As this may prove to be helpful in terms of promoting sustainable living, Woodgrove will be collaborating with Singapore Institute of Building Limited (SIBL), and applying for the SGEcoFund to explore the possibility of developing such an app, where residents can interact and pick up Green Advocate skills virtually. We also intend to explore ways to incorporate features such as a carbon footprint calculator, which would enable residents to key in and measure relevant data points including their utilities consumption, mode of transportation and time taken in commutes, food consumption and sources of production, and the number of items and weightage of items which they have recycled. If successful, this Go-Green app will raise greater awareness on environmental issues related to waste, water and energy, while encouraging the community to collectively shift to an eco-friendly lifestyle through app-based education and gamification.

Tapping on the expertise of SIBL and other climate change VWOs and NGOs, more in-person workshops will also be taking place in the Community Centres, Residents' Committee and even the private estates in Woodgrove, allowing our residents access to more hands-on learning experiences through events such as active recycling and upcycling of old abandoned items and the exchange of pre-loved items in flea markets. Such activities like these will enable more residents to become the Green Advocates of our community.

In summary, I would use the alphabets, A, B and C to describe the on-going and upcoming initiatives which Woodgrove will be implementing in playing our part against climate change as a Community.

A for "Acceleration". We are stepping up on the actions which will be introduced in our community, such as building more community gardens, setting up more active recycling points and training more Green Advocates.

B for "Bolder initiatives". Exploring and trying out new methods to increase sustainability awareness. This will include creating a mobile application as what I have shared earlier with the House and encouraging residents to start embracing not just the existing 3Rs, but an additional 2Rs: "refuse" and "repair" as well.

C for "Collaborations and Community-centric involvement". The initiatives that we execute as a Community to raise more awareness on environmental issues will not be complete without the support of our Government agencies and private organisations as well as our community partners, like the schools which Ms Nadia has shared earlier. We look forward to remaining engaged with them and to deepening our ties together.

Singapore has proven to the world that our Government and people are willing to work together and make sweeping changes for the benefit of our society. Most recently, we can see that from our way in combatting the COVID-19 pandemic. I am confident that we can harness the same strength and unity to build a green community and lead the fight against climate change for the better well-being of our future generations. In Mandarin, please, for my conclusion, Mr Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, overall, I will use the three Chinese character 加 to describe how Woodgrove is going to contribute to the fight against climate change.

First, 加速, or acceleration. We will step up building community infrastructures to deal with climate change such as more community gardens and recycling stations and encourage active participation from our residents.

Secondly, 加强 or strengthening. We will be boldly trying out projects that have not been implemented before, including designing mobile apps to educate more residents on how to do their part to protect the environment, such as refusing to use environmentally damaging items and trying to repair old items as far as possible to reduce wastage.

Thirdly, 加入 or participation. As we encourage more residents in participating community programmes and do their part to protect the environment, we also understand that without the concerted support of Government agencies, the private sector and community partners, our efforts to fight against climate change will not be complete. Therefore, we must continue to invite them to participate in our community activities.

Over the years, our Government and people have worked together very closely for the well-being of our people. How we have worked together to fight COVID-19 is a case in point. I am confident that by harnessing the same strength and unity, we can fight against climate change and give our next generation a better and greener future. Thank you.

5.28 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin by first saying thank you to our youths. While the growing environmental awareness and advocacy among Singaporeans have not gone unnoticed, it is especially our youths in Singapore and also around the world who have been speaking up tirelessly through movements such as Straw Free Singapore, Bring Your Own Bottle Singapore, SG Climate Rally and many more, in the struggle to institutionalise greater environmental protections – a struggle that they should not have to do alone.

My generation was lucky to grow up playing in "longkangs" or drains, climbing trees and catching grasshoppers in natural environments. The access to natural eco-systems, flora and fauna had a very positive physical and psychological impact on our development.

Research worldwide has shown a strong link between green space availability, and physical and mental health. Moreover, nature provides much intrinsic and spiritual value. The declining opportunities for human-nature interactions has been termed by conservationists as the "extinction of experience".

The absence of such opportunities today in Singapore bears testament to the cost of solely focusing on economic development and treating GDP growth as the sole indicator of social progress.

The recent public discourse on the Ulu Pandan and Clementi forests confirmed again our Government's growth priorities. The Government continues to zone Clementi forest for future housing needs while Ulu Pandan forest may be slated for deforestation and development sooner. Many other forest patches have already been cleared in recent years, such as in Tengah and Pasir Ris.

The Government's past strategy was very clear. In order to maintain growth, we need to increase our population size and we need to clear our forests as a result to house the growing population. We act as if the deforestation of our precious natural green spaces is an inevitability when we actually have other options.

The Government has engineered high population growth by allowing a high level of immigration over the past two decades. Our population grew from 4 million in the year 2000 to 5.7 million in 2019, an increase of 41% over 20 years. This is a compounded average annual growth of 1.7% which is in line with that of many developing countries facing population pressures now.

This population policy is a conscious choice of the Government and is not necessarily supported by most Singaporeans. While the Government has reduced immigration growth somewhat since 2011 and promises that it has no population target to achieve, it has continued to award about 25,000 new citizenships and 30,000 permanent residencies every year.

Even assuming no increase in the non-resident foreigner population, the 55,000 new citizens and PRs will increase our population by about 0.8% a year. At that rate, we will still reach 6 million people by 2030, and 10 million in 2095!

I pause at this juncture to note that population growth is actually not the main driver of the immediate demand for land to build housing. Housing demand depends on the Government policies in the property market.

We all know that housing demand in Singapore is largely driven by investment and speculation. This is the result of the many conscious policies of the Government to create a sustained increase in housing prices so that the HDB flat is an appreciating asset and the buoyant property market can contribute to economic growth.

While a steady rise in property values is generally good for the economy, we have also created too much housing demand. Many Singaporeans understandably want to leave the wage-earning class and join the property-owning capitalist class to make passive income, and developers would like to have more land to satisfy that demand. On top of this, there is a huge demand for housing from foreign investors who do not even stay in Singapore.

If we continue to try to satisfy the strong investment demand for housing as a means to drive economic growth, we will definitely need to remove more of our green spaces. But we need to ask ourselves: is this truly what we want? So long as each Singaporean family has a decent place to call home, should we not restrain housing demand?

In fact, evidence is mounting that the current property policies are affecting the future of our younger Singaporeans negatively. The long-term repercussions of having less green spaces in Singapore would affect them even more.

It is not be sustainable to allow property prices and property demand to continue to go up at the current rate. Before we rush to cut down more of our forests, we should do a comprehensive review of what is a sustainable economy and society to us.

Singapore has made great strides in economic growth since Independence, moving from Third World to First. We have also experienced massive changes during the recent pandemic. It is a good time for us to sit down and think carefully about the future direction of our country. Do we want to build a compassionate and sustainable society, or do we want to continue bulldozing through with our current unsustainable strategy of growing through immigration and property value increases?

Any discussion on sustainability in our country necessarily entails a discussion in our population growth. Do we want to still pursue high population growth at the cost of our environment?

If we choose to hold our population constant at around 5.7 million by only awarding enough new citizenships to maintain but not increase our current population, the pressure on providing more housing will ease immediately and there is no need to cut down more forests to increase land supply. We should therefore be in no hurry to destroy our forests.

Slower population growth offers us a better foundation to pursue our sustainability agenda meaningfully. On that note, I thank the hon Members of the GPC for Sustainability and the Environment for their Motion and the 10 proposals that they have put up, which I am broadly in agreement with.

However, there should be mention as to how these piecemeal proposals can be integrated into a future socio-economic development roadmap. Under Proposal 3, creating a sustainability sector is good in encouraging professionalism. But we must bear in mind that we do not want a lot of auditors and consultants running around, who will just impose a lot of additional costs and pressures on other industry sectors.

This sustainability sector should be about technology and not regulation. We do not want to be a climate change technology consumer all the time but the transformation roadmap must make us a technology leader. To that end, I would like to know how the sustainability sector will create more opportunities for our SMEs and more jobs for our Singaporeans.

It is also unclear as to how carbon neutral or reducing some of the proposals are. For Proposal 6 on electric cars, for example, has it been conclusively proven that they will be carbon neutral under our fossil fuel energy infrastructure? Is there a change in our country's energy strategy?

Looking at the bigger picture, our climate mitigation commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement fall far short in comparison to many other countries. Singapore's climate commitments allow for a net increase of emissions up to 2030, and merely promise a slight reduction from a hypothetically projected "business-as-usual" benchmark. On the other hand, many European countries have committed to a net decrease in emissions, and even China has committed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.

We hope the 10 proposals are intended to enable us to achieve more than what we have committed at the Paris Climate Agreement.

Another feature of the 10 proposals is that they are all climate mitigation actions and no climate adaptation actions although both mitigation and adaptation are mentioned in the Motion. Probably as a result of that, population and forest were left out in their proposals, or at least the proposals that I have seen.

Climate Defence was mentioned in Proposal 8 but there were no proposal on how we can defend ourselves against climate change. Adapting to climate change will require many natural and man-made solutions, the so-called "green and grey solutions", such as protecting and restoring forests and wetlands to reduce heat and flooding risks, as well as building physical infrastructure, such as dykes to prevent sea level rise and canals to mitigate flooding.

Having a smaller population and retaining a larger reserve of undeveloped land can better help us to implement these solutions when the need arises. This should be the true spirit for including Climate Defence into our Total Defence, not just lip service or for education purposes.

Sir, today, sustainability is not just an abstract economic or social concept. It is a necessity for human survival and the flourishing of societies. There is strong expectation that sustainability should embody all the human aspirations that the market system cannot effectively deliver.

Sustainability has grown out of the painful experience that an economic development comes with a heavy social cost when the scale of environmental damage caused by pollution became a huge problem in the 1970s. When I was studying in Japan in the 1980s, there were still many victims of the "itai itai" disease inflicted by chemical pollution in Japan. And today, sustainability is not just about localised problems but have become a global crisis.

With that knowledge, allowing the market system to dictate our path towards sustainable progress is unwise and will have dire long-term consequences. In the same way, we should not allow the market system to dictate the degree of social inequality in our society. It is just not sustainable that way.

Sir, in conclusion, we should not allow immigration and excessive property demand dictate the continued deforestation of our nature resources. We express our support of the preservation of our forests. We propose that the cutting down of the Ulu Pandan forest should be put on hold immediately until we are clear what our post-COVID development roadmap will be.

Sir, we support the Motion with the Workers' Party's amendments. We note also that as of December 2020, at least 38 countries have already declared a state of climate emergency and it is time that Singapore should take resolute action as well.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

5.46 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to raise some clarifications to Mr Leong. I would like to ask whether he knows that Singapore's greenery coverage is about 47%. Second, from which report did he learn that our projected population would be about 10 million? Third...Sorry, I have just these two questions to ask.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank Member Mr Don Wee for the questions. Regarding the first question, even though our greenery coverage is about 47%, much of the greenery is man-made. Much of our natural greenery has been lost. That is why we should try to preserve our natural greenery. This is the first point.

On the second question regarding the 10 million figure, this is a projection based on the growth rate of our population, not a figure that I have read in some report. So, this is a figure which I have deduced based on our population growth rate. Thank you.

Mr Don Wee: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you. As a Member of Parliament, we have met many young residents. They tell me that they have been waiting for a long time after applying for a BTO. According to Mr Leong’s reply, does it mean that the HDB should build less HDB flats, therefore, we do not have to cut down more trees? Thank you.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank Member Mr Don Wee for the question. I think the tight situation of the BTO market is not a result of not cutting down trees fast enough. Because the HDB could tweak its policies in various aspects. Now demand for BTO flats has increased, perhaps HDB could step up the building of these flats. The land is already there, and even if you cut down the trees now, they will not turn into BTO flats immediately. These are two different matters. We should understand this. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

5.50 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the climate situation is a looming crisis. It has been growing in urgency for some time.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres highlighted the severity of the problem during the Climate and Vision Summit in December 2020. The world is 1.2-degrees Celsius hotter than it was before the Industrial Revolution and if current trends continue, global temperatures will rise by three-degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Mr Guterres noted that the G20 Nations has spent 50% more of their respective stimulus packages on fossil fuel production and consumption than on low carbon energy. He called on all leaders worldwide to declare a state of climate emergency in their countries until carbon neutrality is reached, noting that some 38 countries have already done so.

As a tropical island state, Singapore is particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels and changes in weather patterns resulting from climate change. Given the way our economy is intertwined with the global economy, disruptions resulting from climate change in other parts of the world could well have a deleterious effect on our country as well. For example, on our food security.

The Government has already recognised these risks. It is thus important for Parliament to acknowledge that our country is in a climate emergency in order to further focus our national priorities on mitigating and adapting to climate change.

The on-going COVID-19 pandemic has hit the global economy hard. However, the crisis has also provided an opportunity for us to reshape our fractured economy. We have a chance to develop industrial sectors, which are less destructive to the environment and thus enhance our overall resilience. We can rebuild our economy to be greener by introducing and improving measures such as one, the provision of grants, loans and tax relief directed towards green transport, the circular economy and clean energy research; two, financial support to households and businesses for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations; and three, new funding and programmes to create jobs and stimulate economic activity in green industries.

There are other steps that we can take towards reshaping our economy in this fashion. The Government is aiming to fully electrify transport by 2040. Can we be more ambitious and bring forward our timeline to 2030? Norway is aiming to reach this milestone by 2025 and the UK and Germany have aimed to do so by 2030. In fact, Norway is very much on track to do so and it has just become the first country in the world where electric car sales outstripped those powered by other means. Our 10-year COE system makes it easier than in most countries to have a fully electric automobile fleet earlier.

In the last few weeks, we have seen an outpouring of support for the conservation of Clementi and Ulu Pandan Forests. Rather than using our limited remaining forests for urban development, we should look first into redeveloping existing industrial land and golf courses instead.

Our workers are the backbone of our economy. It is crucial that we find ways to leverage on our manpower resources to develop a talent pipeline for the green economy.

The hard reality is many industries, particularly those in the fossil fuel-related sectors, will be hard hit. Royal Dutch Shell pivoted away from crude oil towards a low-carbon slate of fuels will cost Singapore 500 jobs and half of the processing capacity in Pulau Bukom in the next three years; while ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron will be cutting the global workforce as well. Keppel Offshore and Marine recently announced that it will be pivoting away from its offshore rig business to clean energy, in large part, due to depressed global oil demand. More than 10,000 workers will be impacted by this move and it remains unclear how many will end up losing their jobs.

The International Labour Organisation in its guidelines for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies recommended several active labour market policies such as: one, helping enterprises and workers transition to the green economy by facilitating access to jobs, employment and training; two, giving particular attention to workers at risk of unemployment in industries affected by climate change including those in the informal economy; and three, introducing well-targeted subsidies that allow workers to acquire skills through work experience and on-the-job training.

In this vein, I propose extending the Special Employment Credit Scheme to provide time-limited wage support to all Singaporean workers while taking up their first job in the green economy. This will incentivise companies to expand their ventures in the green economy and hire and train workers in this growing industry.

In order to formulate more effective policies, it is important that we improve the quality and quantity of statistical data on the green economy. Such data is necessary for us to assess the impact of climate-related policies on our economy, health and social inclusion so that we can fine tune and adjust them.

The Government should take the lead in promoting more sustainable practices through green public purchasing. One of the ways we can do so is by making sustainability a criterion in more public sector procurements. This will provide industry with incentives to develop environmentally friendly works, products and services. It could also lead to savings in public expenditure, especially if full-life cycle costs of contracts and not just the purchase price are considered during the procurement process.

Enhancing GPP practices will also equip public officers with more knowledge and experience to meet evolving environmental challenges. GPP in Singapore has already been introduced via the public sector taking the lead in environmental sustainability initiative. Under this initiative, public sector agencies have been encouraged to put in place environmental sustainability measures, like energy efficiency, water efficiency and recycling. Other green factors that can be considered in public procurement could include recycling, reducing single-use plastics, data centre efficiency and reduction of food wastage in catering.

There is increased demand for corporate performance metrics on a range of environmental, social and governance issues or ESG as more investors seek to align their stock holdings with their issue interests and values. In the biggest survey of its kind ever done, the UN Development Programme's People's Climate Vote found that more than 60% of 1.2 million respondents aged between 18 and 59 see the climate situation as urgent, with 58% of those above 60 affirming. We can thus expect more investors placing environmental issues as a priority.

The Singapore Exchange introduced sustainability reporting in 2016 for listed companies. This complements existing reporting requirements and shows the risk posed by ESG factors managed for future returns. However, no such requirement is placed on private companies.

ACRA could consider requiring simplified environmental sustainability reporting for private limited companies with the revenue of over 100 million dollars and with more than 200 employees.

The Government could also provide grants to incentivise SMEs to optionally submit sustainability reports. This will aid our local firms in their ventures overseas, where they may face increasingly stringent demands for sustainable business contracts, and help them to be more globally competitive. We should equip our local firms before they are affected by such de facto barriers to trade.

It is vital that we look into improving our energy efficiency towards reducing our consumption of fossil fuels and emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Much has already been put in place by way of the Energy Conservation Act of 2013.

I would now like to talk specifically about energy efficiency in the power industry, which produces 39.7% of greenhouse gas emissions in Singapore.

Singapore's total registered power generation capacity was 12,582 megawatts in 2020 while the highest peak system demand since 2005 has been 7,404 megawatts. This currently leaves a spare capacity of some 5,178 megawatts in the system. Combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) operate at a lower thermal efficiency when partially loaded. For example, the Alstom GT26 gas turbine CCGT, of which there are several in Singapore plants, has a turbine efficiency of 59% at full load but suffers a 14-percentage-point drop in efficiency at a 30% part-load.

Given that the power industry is the single largest source of Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions, even a small efficiency gain will reap a significant greenhouse gas abatement. Based on EMA data, the average thermal efficiency of power plants in Singapore in 2019 was about 50%. Can efficiency be increased by operating gas turbines at a higher average part load?

For example, a 4 percentage-point improvement in thermal efficiency of power plants will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about 5% of Singapore's 2050 carbon dioxide reduction target. It will also save almost $100 million a year in natural gas costs at current prices.

In this regard, I would like to know if EMA has looked into what impact the power generation sector's over capacity has on energy efficiency of the power generation sector in Singapore; and whether it has explored ways to increase average part loads and therefore improve the thermal efficiency of our power plants.

Given the deregulated market mechanisms that are currently in place, I acknowledge that this will be a challenging task. However, given the potential benefits to be gained, surely, we can find a way towards a win-win solution. For example, is it possible to maintain the present deregulated system, but revert to some form of efficiency-driven-central load dispatching?

The final point I would like to make is on creating an innovation-oriented sustainability strategy.

Environmental protection has traditionally been the domain of governments which set the regulatory framework and push it down to industries and households to comply. However, as Yale Environmental Studies Prof Daniel Esty pointed out in this article, "Red Lights to Green Lights", this command-and-control framework is now widely recognised as slow and inefficient. The government does most of the work of spotting problems, analysing causes of various harms, spelling out standards and requiring specific technologies to be adopted by particular industries. But an over-reliance on the government as the central actor can lead to high cost, avoidable inefficiencies and disincentives for innovation.

Instead, more government incentives should be put in place to encourage broad engagement in environmental problem solving, that draws on all stakeholders, including companies, entrepreneurs, academics, civil society activists and ordinary citizens in the pursuit of a sustainable future. These practical incentives will induce innovation and help embed a green mindset in all firms and households.

Mr Speaker, while I acknowledge that Singapore has taken many steps to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, the urgency of the problem grows stronger with each passing day. I suggested today some ways to enhance our efforts to integrate more environmentally friendly and sustainable practices in our firms and households. Given the urgency of the climate situation, I call for the House to acknowledge that a state of climate emergency exists in Singapore.

Sir, I thank Mr Louis Ng for tabling this Motion and I support the amendments to the Motion proposed by the Member for Hougang, Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Speaker: Prof Koh Lian Pin.

6.03 pm

Prof Koh Lian Pin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, first, allow me to declare my professional interest in this issue as a Professor and Director of the Centre for Nature-based Climate Solutions at the National University of Singapore (NUS).

I stand in support of this Motion. Climate change is an issue of pressing concern in Singapore and around the world. In recent years, we have already experienced some of the impacts of climate change in Singapore, including rising temperatures and higher rainfall intensity, which can result in flash floods, causing much disruption to our daily lives.

But what is perhaps even more worrying is that climate change can expose Singapore to potentially more serious and insidious consequences in the long run. For example, climate change can result in a higher frequency of extreme weather events that can affect global food production and supply which, in turn, can compromise Singapore's food security. By diversifying Singapore's food supply sources and by ramping up our local food production, we may reduce some, but not all, of these risks .

And therefore, one of the reasons for tackling climate change is to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to have access to quality food, that you and I, can continue to enjoy our favourite plate of Tiong Bahru "chai tow kway" whenever we want to and at affordable prices.

The climate change we are experiencing today is the result of rapidly increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Globally, these emissions are caused by two main activities.

The first is the use of fossil fuels to generate the energy that powers our society. The second is deforestation – the loss of our forests and natural eco-systems to agriculture, forestry, urbanisation and other land uses.

Of course, we need energy to drive our cars, to run our businesses and to keep the lights on in our homes. Of course, we need land for schools, for hospitals, for housing and for the many other legitimate priorities of our society. But, at the same time, we also need to weigh these priorities against the priority of tackling the existential threat of climate change.

Singapore, along with nearly 200 other countries, has committed to the Paris Climate Agreement and its goal of limiting global warming to below two degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. Achieving the Paris Climate Goal is key to reducing the risks of long-lasting and potentially irreversible climate change impacts.

According to scientists on the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we may have only three decades or less to drawdown our emissions to net zero, for us to achieve the Paris Climate Goal.

And when it comes to tackling climate change, mitigation is, at least, as important as adaptation, because whereas climate change adaptation is like learning to live with the disease of climate change, mitigation is preventing or treating the disease itself, by tackling its root cause.

In terms of climate change mitigation, Singapore can do our part by setting more ambitious science-based targets for three key outcomes.

First, we urgently need to reduce our emissions from the use of fossil fuels, by transitioning to renewable sources of energy, increasing our energy efficiency and cutting down on waste.

Second, we need to protect our remaining carbon rich forests and eco-systems and avoid further emissions from deforestation.

And third, we need to start capturing and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

To achieve these outcomes, we need to invest in the research, development and implementation of both human-engineered and nature-based climate solutions, including forest conservation and reforestation.

Achieving these outcomes also requires us to work closer together as a society.

The Emerging Stronger Taskforce, co-chaired by Minister Desmond Lee and Mr Tan Chong Meng, is an example of a much-needed Government-corporate partnership. The Taskforce is developing clear roadmaps for new growth areas and job creation opportunities, as Singapore emerges from the COVID-19 pandemic stronger, cleaner and greener.

We also have many Government-People partnerships, such as the PEERS Network, SG Cares Community Network and Youth Stewards for Nature.

Widening and deepening these partnerships may require the Government to take a more active role than before in communicating to the public, some of the thought processes and reasoning behind certain hard decisions and policies.

Nurturing such partnerships may also require the Government to be even more receptive to feedback from the public on the changing needs and priorities of society, especially with regards to climate change, nature conservation and sustainable development.

Conversely, effective partnerships may also require civil society and the public to understand the broader context of Singapore's many constraints and considerations within which hard decisions have to be made.

Importantly, as Singapore embraces sustainability in a less certain and more polarised world, it becomes ever more pressing for the Government, the corporate sector and the wider public to work together to tackle new challenges and to capitalise on emerging opportunities on the horizon.

I will be 45 this April, maybe still considered young by some Members' standards, but old enough to have been a child in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I still remember back when I was in Primary school, at Bukit Panjang Primary School. My parents brought me on my first overseas trip to Sydney, Australia during one of the school holidays. When the Australians we met heard that we were from Singapore, they spoke very highly about Singapore's reputation of being clean and green, of having the world's best airport, busiest seaport, and so on. And I remember the immense pride I felt as a very young Singaporean.

I think our youths today are ready to be even prouder of Singapore, especially if Singapore takes seriously and demonstrates global leadership in the many causes that our youths care deeply and passionately about, including climate change.

Of course, climate change is a problem much bigger than Singapore. But tackling this problem is also an opportunity for us to be part of something much bigger than ourselves, and be proud of it.

How much is this national pride worth? To me, it is priceless. Mr Speaker, I support this Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Henry Kwek.

6.12 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Motion. Today, I would like to speak on how we can achieve our ambitious target of peaking emissions in 2030 and then halving it by 2050. I also urge Singapore to do more, by building a carbon offset industry overseas.

But to start, Mr Speaker, I would like to highlight our coming carbon emission dilemma that we, a country without much fossil fuel or renewable energy, face in the coming years.

Broadly speaking, at the primary level, 40% of our emissions today comes from power-generation, 40% from industry and 15% are from transportation.

Over time, as we change from cars to EVs, emissions from transport will be folded into power generation. And if, which I suspect it will, our industries continue to electrify, they will swap fossil fuel for electricity. This means that over time, at the primary level, the power generation will account for the vast majority of our emissions. Yet, even as we reduce the emission, we must assume electricity demand will grow as we seek to improve our people's lives and livelihoods.

Therefore, our top challenge is how to have sufficient low-carbon power generation capacity, which must supply most of our future energy needs.

Getting there by adapting our natural gas power generation infrastructure is not easy. The industry experts I speak to inform me that even the new natural gas power plants can yield a 4%-5% efficiency gains, far less than the 50% target.

Carbon and capture and sequestration techniques is too expensive in its present form for natural gas power plants, given the fact that the carbon emissions from natural gas plants are too unconcentrated to be efficient.

We could, of course, go nuclear. But I doubt Singaporeans will be comfortable with that. And given our lack of renewable energy locally because of our intermittent sunlight, we must rely on imports which means either import direct low-carbon electricity imports or low-carbon energy imports like hydrogen. So, electricity or hydrogen.

But, yet, and that is an important point, there is an upper cap on how much we can import electricity from overseas through submarine cables if we are to maintain our energy resilience. As we speak about this issue, let us ask ourselves, can we realistically expect half of our electricity to come from overland or submarine cables? If something goes wrong with those cables, it could take months to fix them. What happens when we need to turn on the switch? In fact, our energy resilience is at stake.

At the same time, the possible low-carbon import – hydrogen, is far from ready. It takes many years to develop hydrogen based energy infrastructure and transportation. Will hydrogen be ready by 2030? By ready, it does not mean ready in the lab but ready in terms of infrastructure, in terms of ships that can ship liquified versions of it. The answer is, in my view, no.

Therefore, if we expect our emissions to decrease steadily immediately after 2030, in the immediate years, before affordable low-carbon power generation options are ready, low-carbon electricity will be Singapore's growth and societal constraint. Will we see a contentious debate on who gets the first dip on scarce low-carbon electricity, much like the issue of how foreign manpower divided Singapore in the past decade? We will be facing stark trade-offs then unless everybody, Government, industry, people, civil society start moving now.

And at this juncture, let me make a broader point. I am glad to hear many inspirational speeches in this Chamber, including from Workers' Party and Progress Singapore Party. Inspirational speeches inspire, but they are not sufficient. For something as important as climate change, we must go beyond saying "do more, do more". Specifics matter, especially on concrete matters on that, in its entirety, can allow us to meet this ambitious targets. What I hope is that, when we propose ideas in this Chambers, they are grounded on realities especially technological realities and informed by consultations of stakeholders from all walks of life and that we explain it to our people in plain simple terms, the trade-offs. Be it giving up on national securities when we import too much low-carbon electricity or higher cost of living or losing one's livelihood or let us say, less BTOs for young people. Only when the policy is debated and discussed in this manner, can we fully expect Singaporeans to buy in what we decide in this Chamber.

Now, let me next talk about how we can halve our emissions and preserve our livelihood at the same time. To achieve this, I believe we should focus on four things.

One, pace ourselves. As explained earlier, there will be a crunch in low-carbon electricity immediately after 2030, until technology matures. Therefore, when we grow our industries, we must start treating electricity as a scarce growth constraint, much as we treat foreign manpower today. We must also not rush to import too much renewable electricity now, so that we at least have headroom left – by that, I mean the option of importing more renewable electricity later on – so that we can continue to improve our lives and livelihoods immediately post 2030, because of the hard limit I spoke earlier about being overly reliant on imported electricity.

Two, I hope we can continue to invest and explore all technologies and infrastructure. The Government is doing a lot now including carbon mineralisation, investments in the hydrogen economy, encouraging Electric Vehicles or EVs. But the technology path ahead is not so clear for Singapore. Therefore, we should hedge our bets by exploring even unusual renewable sources, such as geothermal solutions; by exploring hydrogen based fuel cell car and biofuel options, instead of just relying purely on EVs because that would tax our electrical system and by actively investing in critical energy infrastructure ahead of time, such as, in the future, a liquified hydrogen import terminal, so that the industry has viable alternative renewable energy imports.

We must also be open to ideas, innovations from not just large renewable companies, but also from innovative non-incumbent players too. And create sandboxes for new ideas to be piloted. Because this is one sector where new players have consistently made an impact. And we can weaved all this into an integrated policy and technology road map much like the visionary Reinventing Fire plans that the US and China separately did through the America's Rocky Mountain Institute.

Three, we can put in even more incentives beyond what we have pledged previously, to help our industries, achieve efficiency. In particular, I hope we can come up with a determined effort to reduce emission from our petrochemical industry. We can also revise our Green Mark incentives, to reduce emissions for both new and existing commercial buildings. While I am cautious about increasing carbon tax amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear to me that over time, our carbon price must trend towards the international norms.

Four, create an open and transparent process on climate change debate, as I mentioned in my opening speech in the debate on the President's Address. To Singaporeans, open and transparent process is just as important as an effective outcome. The Government can open up our plans more regularly, to share to people what we are confident to achieve and to also seek collaboration from everybody, in areas we have less confidence in achieving. This process will encourage and increase trust.

Lastly, I would like to talk about how we can contribute beyond our Paris accord commitments. A number of Singaporeans and climate change believers have strongly suggested that Singapore should achieve net zero as early as possible. In fact, I also heard some of my Parliamentary colleagues mention it today. I understand where they are coming from. As a Government, we are mere custodians of Singapore for future generations. We have a moral obligation to leave behind an inhabitable earth. But we also have an obligation to the livelihoods of our people.

So, let me state the obvious – Singapore is probably one of the least efficient countries to be a carbon sink. But I strongly feel that we can do more to live up to our moral responsibility and go beyond halving our emissions. How? Well, as a country, we can go all out to develop carbon offsets beyond Singapore. The means of doing so, the technology of doing so, is already there. By that, I mean planting trees. Indeed, can Singapore be a big player in reforesting our region, or even the rapidly diminishing Amazon rainforest?

If Singapore or our GLCs come in, in a big way, perhaps backed by MAS' green bonds, we can shape this nascent industry which currently operates without robust standards. In fact, I see much corporate demand globally, as international companies are rising to the occasion. They are wanting to go net-zero because this is what their customers and stakeholders expect.

Just look at the recent announcements. Black Rock, which controls $9 trillion assets, is asking all companies to disclose a plan for how their business model will be compatible with a net-zero economy.

Microsoft wants to be carbon neutral by 2030. Salesforce.com pledge to conserve or restore 100 million trees. Large companies now understand they risk being global pariahs if they do not make significant reductions, regardless of the country specific emission reduction targets in their host countries.

If as a country, Singapore go big into carbon offsets through overseas reforestation, we can create value and then that could then pay for carbon offsets for the other half of the remaining emissions in Singapore. Some people will say that carbon offsets overseas do not accrue towards our national targets. It is true, but I would say that there is nothing wrong with helping other countries meet their tough targets, especially when we all know the lack of watertight reporting under the Paris accord means that the real emission situation is probably and definitely much worse than reported as progress.

We can complement this carbon offset industry by developing Singapore into a leading and trusted professional services hub for emissions and carbon accounting. We can encourage leading standards bodies such as the VCS and Gold Standard to set up centre of excellence to shape and promote standards, in partnership with our accounting and professional services firms as well as tertiary institutes. This will create green-collared jobs that many young Singaporeans aspire for.

As we develop our carbon accounting, it is also important that we evolve the regulation of our financial markets to encourage proper disclosure and risk assessment arising from carbon emission. Leading financial centres like Hong Kong and London are moving fast on this.

MAS recently announced Environment Risk Management Guidelines is a step in the right direction. I hope MAS can actively get our FIs to disclose more to the public and encourage them to conduct environmental risk training programs for senior management and board members, and persuade our FIs to stop financing of coal power plants.

Lastly, MFA can also draw on these expertise to hopefully play a bigger role in shaping the global climate change policies, and push for transparent and effective global rules, including in the area of cap and trade, which could benefit Singapore, should we go big on developing overseas carbon offsets.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Mr Louis Ng and MSE's Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC), Young PAP, the VWOs and industry members I spoke to, especially people like Climate Conversations and Green Swans. I would like to end with a quote from Elon Mask, "We are running the most dangerous experiment in history right now, which is to see how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere can handle before there is an environmental catastrophe." So, let us get to work.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Hang on a second. Leader.