from the ground Up

by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, July 14 2009
THE firm behind the Tianjin eco-city in China clinched a three billion yuan (S$644 million) deal yesterday, with a Japanese company, to build a 40ha integrated riverfront neighbourhood.
It is the latest in a string of property deals for the city, a 30 sq km demonstration project driven [...]

by Jessica Cheam, The Sunday Times, July 12 2009, Headline:
[property special]
More home buyers now recognise the benefits of an eco-friendly home and are willing to pay a premium
When the Government launched Singapore’s first green building rating system – the Green Mark – five years ago, sustainability and climate change were unfamiliar terms to the public.
Today, [...]

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, June 2 2009
SOME landlords in the heritage-rich Tiong Bahru estate are cashing in on the demand for cheap housing by converting conserved pre-war flats into dormitory-style housing for foreign workers.
Residents are becoming increasingly concerned about the impact on their estate and have complained of noise, littering and overcrowding.
A Straits [...]

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 [...]

[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.

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 [...]

The Straits Times, 30 April 2009
New URA plan makes landscaping a must for new projects downtown
EXPECT to see more “gardens in the sky” in Singapore, especially in areas like Orchard Road, Raffles Place and along the Singapore River.
A new plan launched yesterday by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) makes it a must for new developments [...]

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 [...]

by Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, April 28 2009

SINGAPORE’S policymakers have unveiled a sweeping blueprint, 15 months in the making, to help build a greener, more energy efficient and sustainable nation.
The $1 billion plan, to be implemented over the next five years, will change everything from the cityscape and landscape here, to the way Singaporeans live and the way businesses are run.
If successful, it will make energy usage here more efficient, reduce pollution and expand the nation’s green spaces – even as the demand for resources rises along with economic growth.
The report of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development (IMCSD) – co-authored by five different ministries – also pledges to advance Singapore’s ambition to be a clean technology and urban environmental solutions hub.
This sector is set to add an estimated $3.4 billion to economic output and create 18,000 “green collar” jobs by 2015.
Speaking at the launch of the 130-page report yesterday, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan acknowledged that the document comes amid Singapore’s worst recession since independence.
“The temptation is to slow down our efforts in the area of sustainable development while we tackle the immediate economic challenges. However, the two are not mutually exclusive,” he said.
“If we want to face the challenges of the future, we really have to start now, today. It’s going to take us a long time… but we’re financially committed to it.”
The report outlines the findings and recommendations of the IMCSD, which was set up in January last year to look at ways to create a sustainable nation in the wake of increasing global awareness of the world’s dwindling natural resources and climate change.
Over the past year, more than 700 people including members of the public, leaders of non-governmental organisations, businesses, grassroots organisations, academics, and media figures offered views through various focus group discussions.
Members of the public also submitted more than 1,300 suggestions in the process.
The feedback has resulted in some aggressive targets, including a 35 per cent improvement in energy efficiency from 2005 levels, as well as a recycling rate of 70 per cent, by 2030.
Singapore also wants to increase its proportion of environmentally friendly “green” buildings from 1 per cent currently to at least 80 per cent by 2030.
Industry observers yesterday called the report “comprehensive and impressive”, but some also highlighted critical gaps.
Dr Geh Min, former president of the Nature Society, said the report was a “a good reflection of extensive intra-governmental as well as community dialogue”.
She applauded the attention given to solar energy, alternative transport such as cycling, and biodiversity conservation.
Singapore Environment Council executive director Howard Shaw said the report was “holistic in nature, capturing key areas”.
However, he said that it failed to include discussion of carbon emissions and “cap-and-trade systems”, a form of carbon trading where polluting industries have to buy carbon credits for the right to pollute.
The other IMCSD co-chair, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Yaacob Ibrahim, said yesterday that Singapore, which lacks natural renewable sources such as wind and geothermal energy, cannot realistically take on such emission targets.
However, the nation is “betting big” on solar energy and is investing heavily in the sector, and will not rule out mass adoption of solar power when it becomes cost-effective to do so, he added.
In any case, the report is an “evolving document” which will be reviewed every five years, said Dr Yaacob.
Responding to the recommendations, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that he was encouraged by the participation of so many Singaporeans in the report.
“This issue concerns not just one or two ministries, but the whole country. Hence we will tackle it using a whole-of- government approach,” he added.