from the ground Up

by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, July 29 2009
Industry group to come up with programmes that meet SMEs’ needs
SMALLER building firms have usually been left out of the spotlight, but they will soon get plenty of attention from the new chief of the Singapore Contractors Association (Scal).
Mr Andrew Khng, who took over from Mr Desmond [...]

by Jessica Cheam, July 9 2009
Govt may resort to legislation if industry fails to adopt such practices: Mah Bow Tan
NATIONAL Development Minister Mah Bow Tan yesterday called on the building industry to get greener and “build more with less” .
He underlined his call by suggesting that if the industry does not start adopting more environmentally [...]

by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, May 28 2009
SINGAPORE’S construction sector, the only bright spot in the economy, is not just growing amid the recession but is also improving its quality and standards.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) last night handed out a record 151 awards at its annual event held at Suntec City.
This was [...]

by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, May 21 2009
TWO key goals will dominate the work of the Ministry of National Development (MND) over the next few years – supporting Singaporeans through the recession and pressing on with efforts to make the Republic an attractive city to live in.
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan outlined these [...]

by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, May 15 2009
Construction firms largely unaffected, but some suppliers are hit
CAMBODIA’S abrupt ban on sand exports is hitting some local building material suppliers hard, but construction companies are expected to emerge relatively unscathed from the sudden embargo.
The country’s Prime Minister Hun Sen announced a total ban on the export [...]

[Commentary] by Jessica Cheam

published as “Black marks on green blueprint”, The Straits Times, May 7 2009

Bold action, flexibility needed to turn S’pore into environmental hub

AFTER more than a year in the making, Singapore’s $1 billion blueprint on how to become a greener, more sustainable nation was finally unveiled by an inter-ministerial committee two Mondays ago.
Coincidentally, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) launched a landmark report the same day on the economics of climate change in South-east Asia, highlighting the damage the region will suffer if this goes unaddressed.
In that sense, the launch of Singapore’s blueprint could not have been more timely.
Leaving aside the ongoing economic crisis, climate change is arguably the most important item now on the international agenda.
A landmark global deal on curbing greenhouse gas emissions is expected to be brokered at Copenhagen in December as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
The United Nations is also calling on governments across the globe to integrate climate change concerns into their sustainable development policies, and to put their economies on the “low-carbon, high-growth” path with a focus on greening infrastructure.
So in the midst of all this buzz over going green, how does the Singapore blueprint stack up?
It is clear that some of the plan’s more aggressive targets, such as reducing energy intensity (energy consumption per GDP dollar) by 35 per cent from 2005 levels, and certifying 80 per cent of all our buildings Green Mark by 2030, are commendable.
But from a wider perspective, some critics are saying the report lacks punch.
The most obvious gap in the plan is its failure to discuss or make any provisions for curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, the chief culprit behind climate change.
Many other countries, such as those in Europe, have gone much further than Singapore in this regard, putting in place measures like “cap-and-trade” systems where polluting industries have to buy carbon credits for the right to pollute.
True, it would have been silly for Singapore to stick its neck out to take on cuts in carbon emissions even before the Copenhagen negotiations, but critics say strategies for such a possible outcome could have been more clearly articulated.
Another key argument for not going big on curbing carbon emissions is that it could send members of an already ner-
vous business community fleeing to places with lower costs and less regulation.
This is a valid concern, but it is one that will recede over time. This is because many forward-looking companies are already anticipating such regulation and making adjustments to their business models, given the rising importance of climate change in recent years.
In fact, being a location with high environmental standards is increasingly becoming a competitive edge.
A second aspect of the blueprint that critics have jumped on is the size of the Government’s commitment to going green. The entire plan will cost $1 billion to implement over the next five years. In comparison, the Jobs Credit Scheme introduced in the Budget costs $4.5 billion. Even the Marina Coastal Expressway, work on which began one day after the blueprint was launched, costs more than $4 billion.
Seen another way, the plan amounts to a very conservative 0.3 per cent of gross domestic product. In comparison, South Korea and Japan have pledged at least 2 per cent to 3 per cent of GDP, costing tens of billions of dollars, to invest in environmental projects to help stimulate their flagging economies.
Ministers at the launch of the blueprint asserted that $1 billion in absolute terms is a big amount and “not to be sniffed at”. Singapore does not want to simply spend some “headline-grabbing” amount, but to do a proper “bottom-up” assessment of how much needs to be spent to achieve cost-effective results, they said.
But the signal that the number sends, in comparison to others, is that Singapore is going slow and staying cautious.
Finally, the blueprint favours a “light touch” approach, which works largely through voluntary action and incentives instead of punitive disincentives such as taxes or legislation.
Some experts are not so convinced that this type of persuasion works to alter the behaviour of companies and people who generally love their plastic bags and resist the idea of paying for them.
In China, the government has put its foot down and banned the manufacture and distribution of thin plastic bags – “white pollution” littering water bodies, beaches and streets all over the country.
This is why environmental leaders like Nominated MP Edwin Khew have called for more legislation to be introduced, not less, if the blueprint is to be successfully implemented.
To be sure, there has been positive feedback on Singapore’s green blueprint. The blueprint is itself a study in efficiency, careful in identifying problem areas and proposing solutions.
But ultimately, what does such a finely honed approach do for Singapore in terms of impact and international image?
Singapore has ambitions to be an environmental hub in Asia, where cutting-
edge clean energy technologies are developed and manufactured. It also desires to position itself as a carbon trading hub in Asia.
So it needs, in a sense, to walk the talk. While it is well-known for keeping the country “clean and green”, it is also gaining a reputation for being conservative about certain key green policies.
Its insistence on being classified as a “Non-Annex I” country under the Kyoto Protocol has come under pressure in recent times. Non-Annex I nations are typically developing countries and do not have to cut emissions by 5 per cent from their 1990 levels by 2012. This is a target which “Annex I” or developed countries need to adhere to.
Many argue that Singapore is a First World, developed nation and should be more of a leader, especially in emerging Asia, in addressing climate change.
If Singapore truly wants to be a global model for sustainable development, there are some hard decisions it needs to make.
It needs to be bolder, or at least more nimble, as the global conversation on climate change continues. It will need to change its position or even boost its plans in the years to come.
The flexibility of this blueprint, an “evolving document” as its authors call it, will be vital to delivering on its green ambitions.

===========================

It was only after this commentary was published that I realised the headline was changed, unbeknownst to me. I would have preferred the headline I suggested originally, but that’s irrelevant now. I would just like to make clear that I’m fully supportive of the Government’s sustainable blueprint. I received lots of feedback after this commentary, most readers liked it, although some others felt I was perhaps too critical or harsh in my assessment of the blueprint. Someone had to write what the critics were saying. I stand by what I wrote, but would like to add that this blueprint is a great effort for the first step this little country is making in sustainable development. Like I said, the flexibility of this evolving document in the coming years will be key to the future of Singapore’s sustainability.

Am off to Germany tonight to cover the 2009 Eco-Marathon organised by Shell this weekend.

Will get a chance to interview Royal Dutch Shell’s current (but outgoing) chief executive Jeroen van der Veer. (see here for an interview with him by The Guardian’s George Monbiot in Jan 09.)

He’s supposedly going to say the transition to electric mobility is going to take decades, hence the need for fuel efficiency. While I’m all for the latter, I’m not so convinced that the transition will take decades. Already, pundits are predicting 2015 as the year when the monopoly that fuel combustion engines currently have on the world will finally be broken.

Any burning questions for the chief, do email me!

by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, May 6 2009
BCA event to help realise 80% target for eco-friendly buildings
SINGAPORE’S nascent green building industry is set to get a boost from a new event in October which will showcase the best of the Republic’s technologies.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) yesterday announced that it will hold the [...]

Like London and Shanghai, Singapore obviously faces a long term threat from sea level rise, and faces challenges in maintaining suffiicient water supply and protecting the natural environment.

So what are some of the steps we can take to mitigate such risks?

This was a subject discussed by Professor Rob Wilby, University of Loughborough, an accomplished UK author and reviewer of the Assessment Reports of the IPCC, who was invited by the British High Comm to hold a Distinguished Visitors Lecture last week on “Adapting to uncertain climate variability and change” .

Had the chance to speak with Prof Wilby, and although he couldn’t comment directly on Singapore’s situation, he said lessons can be learnt from the UK, where studies have been put in place to figure out what the risks are, and what the options are in the future.

“This requires working amongst scientists, involves the public, and international experts coming in and so forth, it’s not a trivial experience you can complete in a short space of time. It requires a measured approach and a long term view of the future,” he said.

“We’re talking about to the end of the century, also recognising that sea level rise won’t stop at 2100 , but beyond that, it will rise further, so we need a far sighted approach.”

Some take-aways from his presentation:

1. minimise adverse environmental side effects
Although adaptation is important, but there must be considerations to the natural environment. Early studies must be done.

2. recognise that decisions taken now will affect future options

3. use scenarios to test fitness of adaptation measures and policies

and 4.provide guidance for practitioners

One important part of the assessment process, he said, was to ask this question:
are there government measures and assistance in place to react in the right way or qucikly enough?

More than a year in the making, the new blueprint for a sustainable Singapore sets out three key areas for a cleaner, greener environment
GREEN buildings make up a paltry 1 per cent of buildings in Singapore today, but come 2030, that number will grow to cover 80 per cent of all buildings.
This is one of [...]