19/10/2024
Please help me give a feedback to reach about Singapore's decarbonisation journey.
https://www.reach.gov.sg/Participate/Public-Consultation/National-Climate-Change-Secretariat/public-consultation-on-singapore-s-decarbonisation-journey?utm_source=REACH+Bytes+-+Public&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=Issue+41+-+2024+-+Public
The below are possible answers you can give for Question 16 and 36. The rest are MCQs.
Qn16
"I do not support both carbon tax and net zero goals.
The developing world relies heavily on fossil fuels due to their low cost and reliability, unlike unreliable solar and wind energy.
A carbon tax, levied on CO2 emissions, increases the cost of all energy sources, particularly coal, oil, and natural gas. This is because all energy production, directly or indirectly, emits CO2.
Increased energy costs hinder economic growth. As energy is essential to every industry, higher energy costs in Singapore would lead to increased costs for all Singaporean goods and services, making its industries less competitive.
While the "social cost of carbon" was estimated at $5 per ton a few decades ago, with current government estimates exceeding $45 per ton, the actual figure may be negative when considering the benefits of fossil fuels.
The benefits of fossil fuels significantly outweigh any observed climate-related side effects. These fuels possess the unique ability to mitigate their own side effects, particularly concerning climate. The concept of a "social cost of carbon" isolates negative side effects from the benefits, neglecting the inherent connection between the two in the context of fossil fuels.
The cost-effectiveness of fossil fuels frees up time, labour, focus, and resources, generating positive externalities for society that cannot be ignored. These fuels are essential for continuous economic growth and development. The real cost to society lies in the increased spending on (cost)ineffective "green" energy sources.
It is pseudo science thinking to consider and exaggerate only the social "cost" of carbon, while completely trivialising and ignoring the immerse benefit of the use of fossil fuels.
Therefore, using carbon tax as a "price signal" a deliberate distortion on effective fossil fuels and promoting ineffective "green energy"
I appeal to the government to include the social benefits of fossil fuels to level the discussion on carbon tax. "
Qn 36
" Despite the media's focus on floods and extreme weather events, data indicates that we live in an era of unprecedented safety from climate-related dangers. According to the international disaster database, climate-related deaths (including those caused by floods, droughts, storms, extreme heat, and extreme cold) have decreased by over 97% in the last 100 years, while the global population has increased by 6 billion.
I appeal to the government to acknowledge this fact above.
The world is unprecedentedly climate safe because cost-effective fossil fuels empowered modern civilization through four basic materials: cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia. The production of these materials requires vast amounts of uniquely cost-effective fossil fuel.
Even Singapore's landmass has increased by 20-25% over the last 200 years through fossil fuel-powered industrial solutions, despite changing climate conditions and rising sea levels. This suggests that a sea-level rise of a few millimetres per year is not a real and objective concern.
I appeal to the government to acknowledge our successful track record in climate resiliency, achieved largely through the use of fossil fuels. Therefore, it's crucial to evaluate new "nature-based" and sustainability solutions in comparison to traditional fossil fuel-powered industrial solutions.
I also hope to draw the government's attention to Chapter 3 of the IPCC's AR6 report, which presents technical observations of extreme weather events. This chapter contradicts the Summary for Policy Makers and conclusions from many COPs by suggesting that most extreme weather events have not increased in frequency and intensity since the 1950s.
References:
https://tr.ee/4sYSsOcPzy
Moreover, William (Will) Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics, suggested that increasing CO2 to 800ppm would only increase global temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius.
References:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/sep/a2.php
Here are other distinguished scientists is not on the climate alarmism agenda:
Dr. John F. Clauser 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics.
William D. Nordhaus 2018 Nobel Prize in Economic Science
Furthermore, according to a global group of economists led by Bjorn Lomborg, the urgency and efficacy of climate policies rank extremely low compared to other policies addressing real-world problems. These include policies focused on tuberculosis, malaria, nutrition, chronic diseases, child immunization, education, and global trade, each yielding a benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) between 18 and 101. In contrast, climate policies, such as doubling the use of renewable energy and keeping global temperature increases below 2 degrees, yield a BCR of only 0.56 to 1.46 globally.
reference:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-benefit-cost-analysis/article/save-42-million-lives-and-generate-11-trillion-in-economic-benefits-for-only-41-billion-introduction-to-the-special-issue-on-the-most-efficient-policies-for-the-sustainable-development-goals/26AC5E41A3D76031B85178E84D070CD8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
Lastly, I hope the government can consider and present a real case in the debate against decarbonisation and carbon taxation.
1. The National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) invites members of the public to share their views on Singapore’s decarbonisation journey, including Singapore’s climate ambition, our transition towards a low-carbon economy and the decarbonisation measures we will undertake. The views will be t...
