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. There’s the rub. What’s more, the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Asian Green City Index last year assessed Singapore as Asia’s greenest metropolis which ranked “well above average” for its policies on energy and carbon emissions.

TODAY newspaper on (14 March 2012):

Singapore – The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) has responded to environmental group World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) findings that the Republic has the largest carbon footprint per capita in the Asia-Pacific.

The NCCS issued its response to “provide a better understanding of the facts” and took issue with the WWF citing Singapore as “a society that may be one of the best examples of what we should not do” – a statement which “seriously misrepresents the situation”, said the NCCS.

The secretariat cited how the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Asian Green City Index last year had assessed Singapore as Asia’s greenest metropolis and said Singapore ranked “well above average” for its policies on energy and carbon emissions.

The EIU study found that Singapore used three megajoules of energy to generate US$1 (S$1.30) of gross domestic product (GDP) – half the Index’s average of six megajoules. The Index had examined the environmental performance of 22 Asian cities in eight categories including environmental governance, air quality, energy and carbon dioxide emissions.

The NCCS also noted that the methodology used by the WWF in its upcoming Asia Footprint Report differs from that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The latter attributes emissions from goods to the country where they are produced, while WWF attributes carbon emissions from the goods to the importing country.

Based on the UNFCCC’s method, Singapore ranked below countries such as Brunei, Australia and South Korea in terms of per capita emissions, said the NCCS.

Even so, the NCCS noted “inherent limitations” in the use of per capita indicators to measure carbon emissions. “Carbon emissions per capita as a measure disadvantages countries with small populations,” it said.

This is so for Singapore due to its small land area, with no readily available alternative energy sources.

Singapore ranks favourably when it comes to energy intensity, the NCCS also pointed out.

Its carbon-dioxide emissions per dollar or GDP is among “the lowest internationally” – or 123 out of 137 countries, based on data from the International Energy Agency.

“Singapore will strive to be an even more environmentally green city, even given our inherent limitations as an island state,” the NCCS said.

Last Monday, the WWF had revealed that Singapore topped the list of carbon emitters per capita in the Asia-Pacific, saying its high GDP per capita fuelled consumption habits and citing the corporate sector and construction industry as a significant contributor.

Exact carbon emission levels of various countries will be revealed when its Asia Footprint Report is out in June.

Source: www.nccs.gov.sg

By Grace Chua, The Straits Times ( 18 March 2012):.

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.

Source: www.greenbusinesstimes.com