Kate Yeo

(Click HERE to skip context and jump straight into the analysis!)

On February 18, 2022, environmentalists across Singapore cheered as Finance Minister Lawrence Wong announced a new national climate target: To achieve net-zero emissions “by or around mid-century”. 

This is a remarkable step forward from the last target, which aimed to halve peak emissions by 2050, and achieve net zero emissions “as soon as viable in the second half of the century”. 

To achieve net zero, Mr Wong revealed plans to increase Singapore’s carbon tax from the current S$5/tonne to S$25/tonne in 2024. This will subsequently be raised to $45/tonne from 2026 to 2027, and S$50-80/tonne by 2030. The new carbon tax figures are much more closely aligned with international guidelines by the IMF, which recommended a carbon tax of S$100/tonne for advanced economies by 2030.

Why is net zero important?

The concept of net zero was popularised by the Paris Agreement, which called on Parties to “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century” (Article 4.1). Simply put, any human-caused greenhouse gas emissions must be balanced by removals. 

Specifically, the net zero by 2050 deadline was published in the landmark 2018 IPCC Special Report. The report emphasised the need to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels to avoid long-lasting or irreversible changes. Accordingly, “global net human-caused emissions of CO2 would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050.”  

Calls for net zero

Local activists have been calling for a firm net zero target for years.

SG Climate Rally’s 2019 Calls to Action document called on the government to “reach net zero by 2050”. 

A public statement co-authored by youth groups and individuals in November last year similarly urged the government to “align with net zero by 2050”.

Significantly, this issue has also been brought up several times in Parliament. In Singapore’s first climate change motion in 2021, MP Louis Chua from the Worker’s Party critiqued Singapore’s then-emissions target and emphasised the need to “push the boundaries further”. More recently, in foreshadowing of the Budget announcement, MP Louis Ng suggested raising the carbon tax to a level needed to get us to net zero by 2050. 

These efforts have in the past been acknowledged, but not met with any concrete answers or change. Most responses by the Ministry of Sustainability and Environment have simply repeated that they will “review” targets and “raise our climate ambition” — without actually explaining how they will do so. 

Which brings us to the question: Why now?

Singapore’s pragmatism

The first key factor, I suggest, is global momentum. 

Over the last few years, a vast majority of countries around the globe have committed to net zero by 2050, including the U.S., South Korea, and Japan. Amongst the world’s largest emitters, China has committed to net zero by 2060, and India by 2070. Strikingly, some countries have already reached net zero — Bhutan and Suriname are now carbon negative. 

This infographic put together by Visual Capitalist based on 2021 data shows that Singapore was one of very few countries without a concrete net zero deadline.
(Source: Visual Capitalist) 

In comparison, Singapore’s previous targets definitely seemed to be lagging behind. In fact, the Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific analysis that tracks climate action across states, labelled Singapore’s as ‘Critically Insufficient’. This put us in the bottom category alongside only 5 other countries, including Iran, Russia and Vietnam. 

CAT’s policy analysis for Singapore. 
(This has not been updated to reflect our new net zero target.)

The government refuted CAT’s assessment, arguing that it does not account for Singapore’s “unique challenges as a small, densely populated city-state with limited access to alternative energy sources.”  Nevertheless, Singapore has long positioned itself as a leader in sustainability. At COP26 last November, Minister of Sustainability and Environment Grace Fu called for “urgent collective action to address the global climate crisis”, and committed Singapore to further reviewing and enhancing its future climate goals. It therefore would reflect badly on us if we did not back up our claims with corresponding action.

The second reason I propose is economic competitiveness. Singapore is looking to establish itself as a green finance hub and more broadly, a key player in the green economy. 

As a local youth climate activist I spoke to said, “Now there’s a bit more push to do [more for climate] because we will not be competitive if we don’t, especially if we want to tout ourselves as a hub for carbon services, trading and also to capture opportunities in the green economy.”

Finally, I think this boils down to Singapore’s pragmatism. Singapore simply does not set targets it cannot hit. 

Phrased another way: Singapore only sets targets that it knows it can hit.

There are few exceptions to this, and we will never live them down. “Goal 2010”, for instance: Back in 1998, then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong announced a new national goal: To get the Lions to qualify for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

We didn’t even come close; the dream was discarded in June 2004. Today, we are ranked 160th, and Singapore football is widely seen as a failure.

So, bringing this back to sustainability: Perhaps Singapore decided to up its target now simply because it’s viable now.

In his Budget announcement, Mr Wong pointed to the advancement of green technologies, saying that “alternative low-carbon solutions, like carbon capture, utilisation and storage, hydrogen, are starting to look more plausible.” Ms Fu noted the same in a recent interview, “Singapore foresees more technologies being available faster, with more at a cost-effective level sooner.”

The role of carbon markets cannot be understated as well. At COP26, parties finally settled on an international rulebook for carbon markets, which allows for the transfer of emissions reductions between countries. For example, a country could fund reforestation projects elsewhere and count the climate benefits towards its own emissions goals. This means that Singapore could reach its targets – on paper – without actually being carbon neutral within its borders, overcoming its geographical constraints.

In line with the carbon tax hike, Mr Wong announced that businesses will be able to use “high-quality international carbon credits” to offset up to 5 per cent of their taxable emissions from 2024. 

The role of activism?

Notably, neither Mr Wong nor Ms Fu mentioned the role of activism in their discussions about the new climate announcements. They pointed directly to technological development as well as business and political pressure. Speaking informally, another local activist said to me, “[To be honest] I don’t think local environmentalists’ pressure to up the targets has been very impactful.”

That’s not to say local activism has gone unheard; the government has acknowledged youths’ efforts over the years.

Acknowledging, however, is very different from genuinely listening to and including youth input. In my view, if activism had really played a significant role, this target would have been set sooner.

It’s no secret that Singapore has always adopted a realist approach to policy-making; founding father Lee Kuan Yew is widely known for his blunt pragmatism. Consider that Singapore’s economy remains heavily reliant on the petrochemicals sector; that the government is still committed to supporting local energy majors like ExxonMobil and Shell. 

As sad and cynical as this sounds, I simply cannot fathom the possibility that the government set this target simply because “Our youth are asking us to, let’s do it for the sake of the planet and future generations!” It’s more likely that they crunched the numbers and decided it’s profitable to do it now.

(These are, of course, just all my own assumptions and conjectures — I’d be glad to be proven wrong!!)

Other considerations

Finally, an important question to ask here is what does “viable” mean to the government? Does “pragmatic” just mean “profitable” and “safe”?

What trade-offs are we choosing to make — and who, or what, gets harmed in that process?

Obviously, I’m not saying we should halt activism in Singapore. I do think it’s had some impact in pressuring the government to do more, and faster. And we should celebrate that! But let’s be mindful not to overhype the new target, especially when a concrete date hasn’t been set yet. There’s still so many more boundaries we can and must push.