Your carbon emissions are still too high but, hey, Singapore is doing a great job when it comes to energy efficiency and others can learn from you.
That seems to be the ‘yes, but…’ response from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), in the wake of a rebuttal by Singapore’s National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) to scathing remarks about the Republic’s greening efforts.
Earlier this month, media reports said that the WWF’s Living Planet Report (2010) had named Singapore as having the highest per capita carbon footprint in the Asia-Pacific region.
WWF President Yolada Kakabadse had called Singapore ‘…maybe one of the best examples of what we should not do’.
Last week, the NCCS – which comes under the Prime Minister’s Office – responded sharply, saying the comment ‘seriously misrepresents the situation’.
The key bone of contention is the methodology. The WWF counts emissions from goods that a country imports as attributed to that country.
But in the United Nations’ methodology, adopted by Singapore, those emissions are attributed to the country producing those goods.
The NCCS also pointed out that ranking countries by per capita carbon emissions disadvantages countries with small populations, and does not reflect Singapore’s lack of alternative energy sources.
In the WWF statement put out on Friday, its Singapore chief executive Elaine Tan said: ‘Singapore deserves recognition for the many achievements it has made in reducing its carbon footprint, particularly in energy efficiency.
‘But in terms of carbon emissions per capita, the country can do more. So WWF welcomes the opportunity to work with the people, private and public sectors, to reduce the burden our current lifestyles are placing on the planet.’
On WWF’s methodology, she said: ‘Consumption activities are the primary drivers of environmental pressure but production activities are easier to regulate. Therefore both are important.
‘However, if you want to understand the environmental impact a high-consumption lifestyle has on a particular place, then you need to look at the final destination.’
National University of Singapore geography associate professor Victor Savage, who studies sustainable development, agreed with the NCCS’ point about ‘per capita’ distortions.
He said using per capita emissions ratings lets large carbon emitters like China, Germany and Australia off the hook. They may not have high per capita emissions, but they are large overall emitters.
But he added that a high per capita emissions ranking can help governments broach the issue with its citizens. ‘You can say, ‘Your per capita usage of energy is so high; we need to do something.”
Singapore’s performance in environmental rankings has varied sharply by the methods and measures used.
In February, a University of British Columbia study ranked the Republic bottom of 150 countries in its ‘ecological deficits’, meaning it used far more of the earth’s resources than it could supply.
In response to that study, the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources said Singapore should be compared with other city-states, not larger nations with more natural resources.
The Asian Green City Index by technology firm Siemens last year rated Singapore tops in its management of waste and water resources, and gave it high marks in sanitation and environmental governance.
