Carbon Pricing for  Energy Efficiency &  Cutting Emissions

Singapore announced a more ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions growth by 16%, based on levels projected for 2020 and by 2030, 80% of all buildings will be energy efficient, with energy consumption cut by one third. But author Tim Harford says until there is a broad-based, credible carbon price as the foundation of any successful policy on climate change, we will all have trouble deciding how we can make a difference.

By Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia (26 December 2009):

Singapore introduces key measures to fight climate change

SINGAPORE : 2009 has been called the Year of Climate Change by the United Nations. And in Singapore, major initiatives were introduced to tackle global warming.

Blame the heavy monsoon rains on climate change, according to the weatherman. A warmer climate traps moisture in the atmosphere, bringing more intense rain and a higher likelihood of floods.

For residents of Bukit Timah, the problem of climate change hit home – literally – in November, when a freak downpour caused a canal to spill over, resulting in severe floods in the area.

One resident said: “The water does not go through, so the water has come all the way up, going into the restaurant. There is no solution.”

But there may be a way out.

In April, authorities unveiled a billion-dollar blueprint to map out how Singapore can develop in a sustainable manner. By 2030 for example, 80 per cent of buildings here will be energy efficient, and energy consumption will be cut by one third.

In December, the government announced a more ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions growth by 16 per cent, based on levels projected for 2020.

Professor S Jayakumar, Senior Minister and Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change, said: “The measures which we will take to reduce our emissions growth will entail both economic and social costs and will require considerable domestic adjustments.”

At the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called on developed nations to take the lead in reducing carbon emissions.

He said: “They must also ensure adequate means to help developing countries to implement urgently needed adaptation measures without compromising sustainable economic growth.”

But some observers said Singapore should do more.

Associate Professor Shreekant Gupta, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, said: “Its total emissions are small, but in per capita terms, its ecological footprint is actually quite heavy. Singapore emits on average 10 tonnes per person, which is as high as the EU.

“It should be focused on promoting carbon markets and in general reducing the ecological footprint of the country – more of reduce, recycle and re-use.”

Professor Gupta wants to see bigger investments in green technologies, like solar power.

City planners have begun a S$31 million pilot programme to install solar panels in 28 public housing estates. And they too hope that it could shine further light into how the sun’s energy can be better tapped to power up our homes. – CNA/ms

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

By Tim Harford in Financial Times (2 January 2010):

Those of us resolving to lead a lower-carbon life in 2010 could do worse than acquire a copy of Prashant Vaze’s new book, The Economical Environmentalist, in which the author picks over the fine details of his life. He works out how much CO2 he could save by driving more slowly, installing loft insulation or becoming a vegetarian. The result will be a little dense for some, but it is delightfully geeky and has the virtue of being right more often than not.

This virtue is underrated. Environmentalists have been slow to realise that the fashionable eco-lifestyle is riddled with contradictions. The one that particularly exasperates me is the “food miles” obsession, whereby we eschew tomatoes from Spain and roses flown in from Kenya, in favour of local products grown in a heated greenhouse with a far greater carbon footprint.

Other less-than-obvious truths are: that pork and chicken have substantially lower carbon footprints than beef and lamb (yes, even organic beef and lamb); that milk and cheese also have a substantial footprint; that dishwashers are typically more efficient than washing dishes by hand; and that eco-friendly washing powders may be distinctly eco-unfriendly because they tend to tempt people to use hotter washes.

My conclusion is that a well-meaning environmentalist will make counterproductive decisions several times a day. I don’t blame the environmentalists: the problem is intrinsically complicated. Over a vegetarian curry in London recently, Vaze ruefully described to me the “six bloody months” he spent trying to research an eco-renovation of his home.

Even the experts can tie themselves in knots. Duncan Clark, author of The Rough Guide to Green Living, unveiled “10 eco-myths” in a Guardian podcast in November. Many of them were well chosen, but unfortunately his number one “myth” was not a myth at all: that switching off lights will reduce CO2 emissions. Clark’s logic is seductive: some European carbon emissions, including those generated by electricity, are subject to a cap. Clark is right to say that conserving electricity will allow other sectors to take up the resulting slack, because they will be able to buy permits to emit more cheaply than if we left our lights blazing.

Where Clark goes wrong is in assuming the cap will remain fixed forever. If we all turn out our lights, the price of permits will fall and politicians will find it politically easier to tighten the cap. So, keep installing those energy-efficient light bulbs. (Another less-than-obvious truth is that it’s not worth waiting for your old bulbs to burn out before you fit the new ones.)

After picking through the ideas of Vaze, Clark, David MacKay (a Cambridge physicist) and others, my view is that it is hopeless to expect that volunteers will navigate this maze of decisions.

That is why a broad-based, credible carbon price will be the foundation of any successful policy on climate change. The price would affect the cost of every decision we make; it would take away the guesswork. Current carbon pricing schemes, such as the European emissions trading scheme, are a good start, but they leave out too many sectors, and permits are too cheap.

And a final admission: not every feature of the low-carbon lifestyle is impossibly obscure. I felt rather smug when I realised I could stop drinking cappuccino in favour of espresso, saving 90kg of CO2 a year. Then I totted up my carbon footprint from air travel in 2009. It is the equivalent of almost 50 tonnes of CO2 – or more than the entire footprint of a typical British family of three. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out how to shrink that particular footprint. This year I shall do better.

Tim Harford’s latest book is ‘Dear Undercover Economist’ (Little, Brown)

Source: www.ft.com