The case against the Singapore PAP’s status-quo climate change policy

Myth busting — separating facts from opinions and deception

Credit : Getty Images

In conversations about the climate crisis, the case for action seems obvious to those who have searched and studied long enough, but often it is difficult to speak up confidently to explain a defense against many common counter arguments and resistance to change. This report presents a summary of the body of knowledge for a particular topic, distills the key facts, and open questions and uncertainties which are fair areas of debate. At the end, there is one simple conclusion based on the facts.

Ultimate conclusion based on weight of evidence :

To fulfill its constitutional responsibility to preserve life of its citizens both young and old, Singapore must align its Nationally Declared Contributions under the Paris Agreement to the scientific targets to limit global warming to <1.5 C by at a minimum peaking emissions by 2020, -45% by 2030 and zero by 2050.

Singapore’s current policy is not in line with this obligation and is undermining its implicit social contracts and legitimacy to rule with both domestic constituents and broader international community

At the conclusion of this report the reader should be convinced that the case for action on climate change is obvious, but a few open questions remain :

Open questions

1. How to raise the political will ambition required to accept the dramatic and possibly uncomfortable transformation to limit global warming to <1.5 C ?
2. What is the pathway to a safe climate of <1.5 C that has the lowest risk to progress on other sustainable development goals ?

All other issues and distractions thrown out are ultimately either fallacies, diversions, misleading, outright false, or a restatement of these open problems. The problem of climate change is not a gap of information in climate science, engineering or economics. Instead it is a deficiency of collective problem solving at multiple scales of government, in particular at the national and global level. This should not come as a surprise because it is a fact that there does not exist a global authority to manage the global commons.

Main argument

Humanity is obligated to limit global warming to <1.5 C and Singapore is obligated to do its part under the Paris Agreement to lead as a developed country with ambitious Nationally Declared Contribution. As a wealthy city-state it has the surplus wealth in excess of what is required and technological solutions exist to meet or exceed the targets within a budget of <1% of GDP.

1. The global climate crisis — Humanity has the imperative on ethical and economic grounds to meet emissions reduction targets to limit global warming to <1.5C. Peak by 2020, -45% by 2030 and zero by 2050. The estimated social cost of carbon is US $40–80 USD/ton CO2eq and reported budget for mitigation is <1% of GDP
2. Legal and ethical precedence — Singapore, as a developed country and signatory to the Paris Agreement, is obligated to do its part to meet the global imperative by leading as a developed country and adopting ambitious emissions reduction through its nationally declared contributions
3. Singapore’s national circumstances — The minimum commitment by Singapore to do its part of the Paris Agreement is to meet or exceed the global emissions reduction targets. Singapore has a high economic development status, wealth and economic influence. In comparison to the circumstances of other similar cities it has sufficient surplus means and resources to meet ambitious targets within the social cost of carbon and estimated budget of <1% of GDP per annum at no less risk to public welfare as any other state.
4. Greenhouse gas inventory and mitigation solutions — Technical solutions for ambitious NDCs exist that account for Singapore’s unique national circumstances and geographic, diplomatic constraints and fit within the published budget of <1% of GDP per annum.

Climate crisis key facts

Humanity has the imperative on ethical and economic grounds to meet emissions reduction targets to limit global warming to <1.5C. Peak by 2020, -45% by 2030 and zero by 2050. The estimated social cost of carbon is US $40–80 USD/ton CO2eq and reported budget for mitigation is <1% of GDP

1. The earth’s climate is warming
2. Warming is caused by human activity of burning fossil fuels and agriculture practices
3. Warming destabilizes the climate and damages ecosystems
4. Positive feedback loops risk crossing irreversible tipping points and dangerous conditions for future generations
5. Safe threshold limit set at 450 ppm and +2.0 C of warming
6. Bad gamble, business as usual is a path to a catastrophic future
7. Still time to act : 10 years to reduce emissions by 45%
8. Action to-date still insufficient to meet targets
9. Climate justice — those who are least responsible are exposed to the highest risk of loss

The earth is warming

Since the Industrial revolution in the late 18th century 1850–1900 the earth is gaining more heat from the sun than it releases to space and consequently the temperature of the ocean is rising, the temperature of the atmosphere has risen by +0.9 C and as a consequence the climate is changing (IPCC, 2018).

Warming is caused by human activity of burning fossil fuels and agriculture practices

Human activity causes warming due to increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide due to burning fossil fuels for energy, methane from rice farming, raising animals for meat and extraction of fossil fuels and deforestation for agriculture and infrastructure development. 65% of global warming can be attributed to carbon dioxide emissions (Blunden, 2019). As of 2018 global emissions are currently at a rate of 55 Gt/yr of CO2eq (UN Emissions gap report, 2019) and the atmospheric CO2 concentration is >407 ppm (Blunden, 2019).

Warming destabilizes the climate and damages ecosystems

As a consequence of the warming and climate change, polar ice is melting, sea levels are rising, and extreme weather events are more frequent and intense than from pre-industrial times. Compared to 1981–2010, in 2018 the summer Arctic sea ice extent reached its lowest level -26% (Blunden, 2019), sea levels have risen by +81 mm since 1993 (Blunden, 2019), number of hot days has increased by +50% since 1950 with a corresponding decrease in the number of cold days (Blunden, 2019) over land wet areas are experiencing higher rates of precipitation and dry areas are experiencing more prolonged and frequent droughts (Blunden, 2019). The number of North Atlantic major named storms (>178 km/hr wind speed) in a season have increased by +90% since the 1880’s (NOAA, 2019). The estimated social cost of carbon is $40–80 USD/ton CO2eq (US Obama Whitehouse OMB, 2016) (International Monetary Fund Fiscal Monitor, 2019).

Positive feedback loops risk crossing irreversible tipping points and dangerous conditions for future generations

The projected responses of climate change include climate feedbacks, changes over decades to millennia that cannot be avoided, thresholds of abrupt change (tipping points), and irreversibility, the point at which human intervention is no longer possible (IPCC Oceans report, 2019). Ocean warming, acidification and deoxygenation, ice sheet and glacier mass loss, and permafrost degradation are expected to be irreversible on timescales relevant to human societies and ecosystems (IPCC Oceans report, 2019). The rate of ice melting in the Antarctic which has the potential to lead to a sea level rise of several meters within a few centuries may trigger a point of irreversible instability of certain ice sheets (IPCC Oceans report, 2019).

Safe threshold limit set at 450 ppm CO2 and +2 C of warming

Prior to industrial times for the past 800,000 years of geological history the earth has never exceeded the inter-glacial maximum of 300 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere (Blunden, 2019). The recommended safe climate limit for warming recommended by scientists to avoid destabilization of the climate system is <450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 with an eventual return to historical norm of 300 ppm and < +1.5 C of warming (IPCC, 2018) by 2100. The 2015 Paris Agreement is an international agreement signed by >190 countries to limit global warming to well below +2 C and ideally 1.5 C by 2100. For global warming of +2.0 C the realized damages and risks of irreversible losses in ecosystems and warming acceleration feedback loops in the oceans and cryosphere become exponentially greater compared to +1.5 C (IPCC, 2018).

Bad gamble, business as usual is a path to a catastrophic future

The median estimated warming from current trajectory is +3–4C and global economic losses of -23% of GDP with higher losses -80% in more vulnerable regions such as Southeast Asia (IMF, 2019). Due to the nonlinearity of the climate feedback systems and uncertainty in the models, there is a wide spread in scenarios, with potentially infinite costs in the low probability worst case up to and including human extinction (IMF, 2019). By comparison the estimated cost of mitigation globally is in the range of 1–4% of GDP (Stern Review, 2008). While it is realistic to expect some discomfort in the short term transition, in the long term it is a better choice than the alternative.

Still time to act — 10 years to reduce emissions by 45%

As of 2018 there is still time left to avoid the worst consequences and limit global warming to <1.5 C by reducing emissions peaking in 2020, -45% by 2030 and zero by 2050. To achieve these targets emissions must fall by 7.6% each year (United Nations, 2019). Pathways limiting global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot would require rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems. These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments in those options (IPCC, 2018).

Action to-date still insufficient to meet targets

The prognosis of the future warming based on best available scientific knowledge of current actions and commitments and policies of world governments and businesses is +3–4 C far beyond the safe limit of +2 C (United Nations, 2019). In 2018 the emissions gap in 2030 between current policies 60 Gt CO2eq/yr and the safe limit for +1.5 C warming (25 Gt) is 35 Gt or 58% of projected emissions. Not only current policies but also conditional nationally declared contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement fall far short of the required emissions reduction by 29 Gt (UN Emissions gap report, 2019). Singapore’s current policy and NDCs to reduce emissions per $ of GDP by -36% and to stabilize emissions by 2030 are rated as highly insufficient and if every country adopted the same policy would result in a global warming of +3–4 C (Climate Action Tracker, accessed 2019).

Climate justice : those who are least responsible are exposed to the highest risk of loss

In the optimistic +1.5 C scenario is forecasted to leave disadvantaged populations with food insecurity, lost incomes and livelihoods, and worse health. Five-hundred million people exposed and vulnerable to water stress, 36 million people could see lower crop yields, and up to 4.5 billion people could be exposed to heat waves (IPCC, 2018). A rise of only 1.5 C rather than 2°C could mean reducing the number of people vulnerable to climate-related risks by up to 457 million; 10 million fewer people exposed to the risk of sea level rise; reducing exposure to floods, droughts, and forest fires; limiting damage to ecosystems and reductions in food and livestock; cutting the number of people exposed to water scarcity by half; and up to 190 million fewer premature deaths over the century. Climate change threatens the most severe impact in poor countries and regions, and the places poor people live and work. Developing countries will bear an estimated 75–80% of the costs of climate change. People in poverty tend to live in areas more susceptible to climate change and in housing that is less resistant; lose relatively more when affected; have fewer resources to mitigate the effects; and get less support from social safety nets or the financial system to prevent or recover from the impact. Their livelihoods and assets are more exposed and they are more vulnerable to natural disasters that bring disease, crop failure, spikes in food prices, and death or disability. Climate change threatens to undo the last fifty years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction. Middle-class families, including in developed countries, are also at risk of slipping into poverty from direct and indirect impacts of climate change. The World Bank estimates that without immediate action, climate change could push 120 million more people into poverty by 2030 and rising in subsequent years. Eight hundred million in South Asia alone live in climate hotspots and will see their living conditions decline sharply by 2050. (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2019). Carbon emissions is positively correlated to household expenditures, purchasing power and income level (Drukman, 2016). At a global level the G20 nations account for 78% of global emissions (UN Emissions gap report, 2019). Cities are hotspots for emissions C40 cities have an average per capita emission of 10.7 tons per year 50% higher than the global average (C40 cities, 2018). The per capita emissions of highest income G20 country United States is 8x higher than the lower income developing country India (UN Emissions gap report, 2019).

Legal and ethical precedence for Singapore

Singapore as a developed country and signatory to the Paris Agreement is obligated to do its part to meet the global imperative by leading as a developed country adopting ambitious emissions reduction expressed through nationally declared contributions

1. Obligation to do its part — Singapore by joining the Paris Agreement as a signatory has indicated its obligation to doing its part to limit global warming to well below 2.0 C and target for <1.5C
2. Ambitious effort is expressed through NDCs — Under its PA obligation, Singapore must indicate its ambitious effort through its Nationally Declared Contribution (NDC) emissions reduction.
3. High economic development status obligates to lead ahead of others — The Paris Agreement states that developed countries compared to developing countries have a greater responsibility to lead emissions reductions
4. Constitutional obligation to protect life and liberty — Singapore further has an obligation to its younger citizens to adopt policies that safeguard their long term health and safety under its constitutional obligation to defend the right to life and liberty.
5. Social contract to safeguard whole of society— As a nation state, the government of Singapore is obligated by its social contract to safeguard the security and collective social welfare of the whole of society and not only a minority interest

Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement affirms the signatory states to “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change” (UN Paris Agreement 2015 Article 2.1a ). States are responsible to indicate their participation as nationally determined contributions to the global response to climate change, and to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts with the view to limiting the warming to <1.5C (Article 3). The agreement intends to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances ( Article 2.2 ). Article 4 establishes the role of developed countries to take the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets and to provide assistance to developing countries. The basis of reporting and Nationally Declared Contributions is territorial emissions.

Singapore constitution

Fundamental liberties — Liberty of the person — “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” (Singapore constitution, last accessed 2019)

Social contract

The social contract is the implicit terms of the agreement between the ruler and the people and legitimacy for the right to rule. The belief is that a social contract must exist either implicitly or explicitly for any stable form of government to persist legitimately. In all forms the social contract states that it is the responsibility of governments to safeguard the best long term interests of the whole of society, and not for personal gain or a minority interest. Examples of social contract theories are that the people forego their own personal liberties in exchange for security (Hobbes, 1651) and an alternate theory is that government is an expression of the consensus of the people and that they submit their individual wills to the consensus (Rousseau, 1762)

National circumstances

The minimum commitment by Singapore to do its part of the Paris Agreement is to meet or exceed the global emissions reduction targets.

Singapore has a high economic development status, wealth and economic influence. In comparison to the circumstances of other similar cities of its peers it has sufficient surplus means and resources to meet ambitious targets within the published social cost of carbon of US $40–80 USD/ton CO2eq and budget of <1% of GDP per annum at no greater risk to public welfare as any other state.

1. Is a highly developed, wealthy and powerful city
2. Has surplus resources available from new tax revenue and reserves to finance an economic transition at a budget of <1% of GDP per annum
3. Subnational climate justice — within Singapore is a range of residents of low and high affluence and carbon footprint and the more wealthy have a responsibility to pay their share
4. Depends on trade and diplomacy for nearly all aspects of the city’s function — food, water, energy and strategy for emissions reduction will be no different
5. Has a highly educated workforce and demonstrated capabilities to execute economic transformations in the past
6. high population density and public transport infrastructure
7. Nearby natural resources for decarbonization — ASEAN grid and Australia for solar, hydroelectric, wind and geothermal — Natuna/Indonesia fields for CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery

Is a highly developed, wealthy and powerful city

Globally cities are disproportionately centers of economic wealth and influence at subnational levels. The 300 largest metropolitan are responsible for 66% of GDP growth in 2014–2016 (Brookings Institute, 2018). On average globally metropolitan areas are more affluent than their surrounding areas across all regions (Brookings Institute, 2018). Singapore is classified as very high human development with a human development index (HDI) of 0.932 where an HDI of >0.79 is considered highly developed (UNDP, 2018). In terms of wealth it also ranks high with a 2016 GDP per capita of $55k (World Bank, 2019) which places it in the top 83% percentile compared to OECD metropolitan areas (OECD, accessed 2019) and is safely classified as advanced which is defined as > $12k/yr according to the World Bank (Brookings Institute, 2018). Singapore not only ranks high in terms of wealth, but also power and influential. It ranks 5th behind London, Tokyo, Paris, New York and ahead of Seoul in the 2019 Global Power City Index (Mori Memorial Foundation, 2019) which takes into account 70 different metrics in areas such as Economy, Cultural, Research, Livability, Accessibility and Environment. Relative to its peers of other cities Singapore stands out above the others complicit with responsibility to lead first in emissions reduction. The city’s total consumption based carbon footprint of 31 tCO2eq/capita ranks at the top 99.3% percentile #4 of 500 cities (Moran, 2018)

Has surplus resources available from new tax revenue and reserves to finance an economic transition at a budget of <1% of GDP per annum

Singapore’s tax revenue as a % of GDP is one of the lowest in the world at 13.7% (Heritage Foundation, accessed 2019) in the 22% percentile of 500 states worldwide so an additional +1% would still result in the state being within the range of low taxes globally, and for this reason along with other attractive pull factors for the city it is unlikely that a large number of businesses and high net worth individuals would leave only because of a carbon tax increase. Furthermore as a consequence of running a surplus budget for many years Singapore has accumulated S$376 billion in reserves, or more than 90% of GDP (MAS, accessed 2019) which is another potential source of funds for the transformation. This positive accumulation is further evidence of advantage of Singapore vs other peer OECD states which most have public debt vs surplus reserves. One self-imposed administrative restriction worth taking note, but not relevant in assessing the state’s available resources is that Singapore is forbidden by the Constitution from running a deficit (Singapore constitution, accessed 05 Dec 2019). Were the state to find that it needs to tap into these resources it may be able to do so if it can justify that it is at a time of crisis. Other states have signaled the intent to apply a similar strategy by formally declaring a climate emergency (BBC News, 2019).

Subnational climate justice — within Singapore is a range of residents of low and high affluence and carbon footprint and the more wealthy have a responsibility to pay their share

The principle of climate justice recognizes that while the costs of climate change fall hard on everyone, the share of those who are contributing to the emissions through their consumption behavior is not distributed equally, but concentrated along the same lines as the structural wealth inequality in society. Many lower income households in Singapore do not run air conditioning and are at higher risk of heat stroke with increase number of hot days due to climate change. It is this evidence of climate injustice that is the ethical basis for a progressive VAT luxury good consumption tax and carbon tax on polluting industries with divided redistribution back to low and middle income households. At a subnational level in Singapore the distribution of the household share of the consumption based carbon footprint of 30 ton/capita is not evenly distributed and concentrated in the top percentile income earning households which have on average larger household gross floor area, own personal vehicles and spend more on air travel (Singapore statistics Household expenditures survey, 2013). In general there is evidence of a statistical Kuznets curve for income inequality (Dawson, 2010) whereby inequality is at a peak for moderate development and lower for low development and high development. For the case of Singapore which has a very high development status of 0.932 the income inequality of 0.46 (1 perfect inequality, 0 perfect equality) is higher than the Kuznets prediction of 35 and by comparison to OECD peers at a similar development level (CIA world factbook accessed 2019). Further evidence providing support that the share of Singapore’s development has not been distributed evenly is that the share of households living on less than the poverty line level of S$2,500/month is estimated to be 20%, which is also relatively high compared to OECD peers (Chua Beng Huat Straits times 2018).

Depends on trade and diplomacy for nearly all aspects of the city’s functions — food, water, energy and strategy for emissions reduction will be no different

Like any city or trade hub, Singapore relies on imports from its trade partners to meet all aspects of daily needs and economic inputs for the society to run. Significant share of total water supply (PUB, 2019) from its neighbor Malaysia and >90% of the food supply is imported (Mahmud Straits Times, 2019). From an energy perspective all of its natural gas is also imported, so cross-border solutions for decarbonization both for energy and financing would be consistent with how the city manages all other aspects of its daily operations.

High population density and public transport infrastructure

Is a city of land area of 720 km2, additional 700 km2 of water, rooftop area >45 km2 (SERIS, 2013) and an island-wide population density of 7,794 ppl/km2 with localized population densities 10,000–30,000 ppl/km2 (Singapore statistics, accessed 2019). The public transportation system of Singapore and private car ownership is similar to other top ranking cities — Tokyo, London, Hong Kong in terms of utilization ->0.5 public transportation trips per day per person and infrastructure →30 km of rail per person (LTA, 2015).

Nearby natural resources for decarbonization — ASEAN grid and Australia for solar, hydroelectric, wind and geothermal — Natuna/Indonesia fields for CO2 storage and enhanced oil recovery

Similar to Singapore’s food supply much of its energy and decarbonization resources exist beyond its territorial boundaries. Low carbon energy supply options in ASEAN via the Asian Power Grid (APG) are similar to Singapore and limited mostly to carbon capture, solar and nuclear. Limited geothermal exists in Indonesia and the Philippines, estimates of wind potential are limited to select areas such as offshore Vietnam and hydro-electric from Lao is politically controversial among environmentalists in neighboring countries such as Thailand (Finenko, 2016). Compared to Singapore however, there are large land areas nearby in Malaysia and Indonesia that could potentially be converted to solar and imported in via cables, furthermore electricity imports from solar are also possible from Australia. The most significant resource outside of Singapore however are the geological formations suitable for permanent carbon dioxide storage and enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The sites for geological storage are numerous in the region, however EOR sites are limited only to oil fields in Malaysia and Indonesia but still relatively accessible by pipeline or shipping.

Greenhouse gas inventory and mitigation solutions

Technical solutions for ambitious decarbonization exist within a budget of <1% of GDP that account for Singapore’s national circumstances of constraints of diplomacy with neighbors, land area and tropical climate.

1. Singapore’s emissions profile is 40% from petrochemical, 20% other manufacturing, 16% vehicles, 20% air conditioning, 4% non AC electricity usage (NEA, 2018)
2. Current electricity generation 95% natural gas (NEA, 2018)
3. Realistic options for Singapore at <$75/ton are — Carbon capture at industrial and power plants, solar — domestic and imported, other regional imports from APG, Gen III/IV nuclear in the long term and carbon financing credits in the short term

Realistic options for Singapore at <$75/ton are — Carbon capture at industrial and power plants, solar — domestic and imported, other regional imports from APG, Gen III/IV nuclear in the long term and carbon financing credits in the short term

CCUS is currently implemented in the US, Norway and Japan with reported costs in the range US $60–100/ton and projected to fall to $40/ton by 2050. Currently CCUS projects such as Petra Nova in Texas are profitable using only the credits from enhanced oil recovery (EOR) without minimal government subsidies (Global CCS Institute, 2017). With access to oil fields and use of EOR in Malaysia or Indonesia CCUS could be deployed at scale even if the technology can be rapidly and profitably deployed by private market participants in a carbon tax environment at the level recommended by the IMF of $75/ton both for Singapore’s industrial emissions in petrochemical sector and for power plant facilities. Retrofit costs for CCUS on existing natural gas power plant is less capital costs compared to installing new facilities which also favors CCUS vs other alternatives that may leave the power plants stranded. Solar and other renewables may be imported from the ASEAN region and the APG with the share of renewables dependent on regional decarbonization acceleration. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement once materialized could be an additional opportunity for states such as Singapore to finance low cost carbon mitigation projects overseas in the short term while it develops technology improvements in CCUS and Nuclear for its domestic transition. Nuclear is also a suitable option for Singapore given the land constraints. Prior studies have identified possible safe siting locations at satellite islands (Palmer, 2010). Compared to the risks of catastrophic warming 3–4C, the total risks of nuclear power generation are relatively smaller, and also nuclear has a lower fatality and injury rate compared to others in the energy industry (OECD NEA, 2010). The waste generation, disaster risk and workplace safety risk are all much lower to acceptable levels for later generations Gen III/IV. Gen III is ready for deployment today and Gen IV is likely to be ready in the next 10 years, which could be a compliment to Singapore’s portfolio as electricity rises due to electrification of the economy (MIT, 2018). Any one or combination of these strategies is possible to meet scientific targets with a budget of US $75/tCO2eq.

Concepts from economics

Economic game theory and prisoner’s dilemma

In an economic game, two or more players make a move and their outcome — either a reward or punishment is a function of both their move and the move of other players. There are many varieties of economic games and the general topic and theory was elaborated in detail by John Nash (Osborne, 1994). There are many variants of game rules that produce different expected outcomes and dominant or popular strategies. In particular is the game of prisoner’s dilemma is closely related to the Paris Agreement. In the prisoner’s dilemma, the individual player can choose either to cooperate, or defect. If everyone cooperates, it is the best social outcome overall, however each player gives up some cost to cooperate compared to if they were to defect. If they defect, and everyone else cooperates, then they may gain and be better off in private than if they cooperated. Defecting is also referred to as “free-riding”. The basic understanding of this dilemma is almost universally understood in all cultures and is the reason why punishments for cheating and stealing are nearly universal. Social rules are a way of maintaining cooperation by punishing defect, free-riding behaviors.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

GDP is a simple measure of the total income for a population. It is simultaneously a measure both of the total incomes and of the total expenditures. It’s analog on an individual level is the average incomes or profits per person. GDP per person can also be thought of as a measure of the level or pace of economic activity which is captured through financial transactions. The physical interpretation of GDP from a consumption perspective is the average “basket of goods” consumed in that population. Some of the consumed goods are essential (inelastic) while many others are luxury or non-essential (elastic) and this distinction between these different classes of goods explicitly built into most modern economic models. GDP is strongly related to energy consumption. GDP is not a measure of well being nor does it measure externalities costs imposed on anything that is not priced into the system such as natural resources.

Common flaws and logical fallacies in discourse

Meaningful debate is enhanced when both sides have the ability to discern between substantive, and insubstantial arguments commonly encountered in debate and political discourse. The space for substantive truth is small compared to the wide range of misleading statements, conjecture and opinion such as fallacies, psychological tactics, foul play, opinions and false information.

Substantive claim — falsifiable, evidence

A substantive claim or argument meets the condition that it is falsifiable and backed by evidence, and is not a fallacy. An example of a substantive claim can be found in the IPCC report :

According to climate models, To limit global warming to <1.5C, emissions must reduce by -45% by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050

In this case, statement makes a falsifiable claim in to ways. First it provides a falsifiable statement of how the models determine the temperature rise, and second it is making a prediction about future warming of the real world. This claim could be quickly tested to be false if someone were to run the models with those parameters and find a different outcome from 1.5C. Secondly, the claim provides evidence — the models are the evidence and further evidence validating the models themselves can be traced through the paper’s citation reference and subsequent collective body of scientific published literature.

Another example of a substantive claim is paraphrased here from the Singapore Biennial update report on solar output

Solar capacity in rooftops in Singapore is estimated to be available for up to 45 km2 of rooftop area

This statement meets the criteria for falsifiability since one could lookup Singapore’s map data and sum-up and see how the number compares to 45 km2. For the case of the BUR they do provide citation reference as evidence.

Fallacies

1. Stating opinion as fact
2. False premise — starting facts are wrong
3. Cherry picking
4. False dichotomy
5. Straw man
6. Slippery slope
7. Appeal to ignorance
8. Circular reasoning
9. Red herring
10. Sunk cost

Stating opinion as fact

An opinion is not a substantive claim. Opinions are expressions of belief, and do not require either falsifiability nor do they require evidence.

False premise — starting facts are wrong

In a false premise conclusions are drawn from false starting assumptions.

Since Singapore has no options to fully decarbonize it energy sector then it shouldn’t make ambitious pledges that it cannot fulfil

In this example the starting assumption is false, it is not true that Singapore has no options for full decarbonization.

Cherry picking

Cherry picking is a selective presentation of true statements and facts and avoidance of others in order to present a biased and misleading narrative

Singapore as a developed economy is doing its part for the Paris Agreement by leading in mitigation efforts, it is the first country in Southeast Asia to implement a carbon tax.

This statement is true, but it is neglecting two important context points of information 1) Artificial limitation to Southeast Asia -Global warming is an international phenomenon and carbon taxes have been implemented in several countries around the world already 2) price level — for a tax to be effective its tariff rate must be set correctly in the right range, this statement neglects to inform that the price level of the carbon tax $4 vs $75 recommendation 3) low ambition NDCs. Taken together as a whole these 3 facts presents a more complete narrative that the carbon tax policy instrument is ineffective at achieving the requirements for the pace of emissions reductions

False dichotomy

A false dichotomy is selective presentation of limited choices and neglecting other choices, similar to cherry picking.

Singapore’s national circumstances limit its ability to set scientific targets for its NDCs. It has limited available renewable sources of energy — solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric in its territorial boundaries.

This is a false set of choices because it neglects other alternative choices that are more relevant to its national circumstances 1) carbon capture 2) imported renewable electricity from ASEAN neighbors 3) nuclear energy 4) cross-border purchased emissions reduction credits

Straw man

A straw man is a defensive counter-argument responding to a fictitious argument that was not presented

Proposal :

For Singapore to do its part on the Paris Agreement, it should adopt a carbon tax rate that is closer to the IMF recommended rate of $75/ton

Response :

A higher carbon tax would unfairly punish working class Singaporean’s by cutting into their savings from increased electricity prices and higher unemployment

This statement presents a particular subset of carbon tax policy which has no redistributive or economic stimulus component as representing the whole set of possible carbon tax policies. In this case more details of the carbon tax implementation are attached to the response than were originally included in the proposal.

Slippery slope

Slippery slope draws a logical chain of events with either weak links or with many links in order to reach an extreme and or unlikely conclusion

If we tax carbon, industrial output will fall, GDP will decline and the economy will tank

This argument links together a chain of events that lead to increasingly severe and unlikely events. The first link is between industrial output and carbon taxation, the second link is between GDP and industrial output, the first weak link because it neglects the possibility of GDP growth from other sectors, and the last link is an amplification of a trend, that GDP decline (a recession) is equivalent to tanking the economy (a depression) when in fact the later is a more extreme, lower likelihood version of the former and one does not always lead to the other.

Appeal to ignorance

An appeal to ignorance falsely concludes that a statement is true if it cannot be proven false. Another name for this tactic is shifting the “burden of proof”.

Since there has been no compelling evidence presented that Green New Deal for Singapore will assure against are economic downturn then this is proof that carbon tax will lead to unemployment and a depression

The absence of a fully developed argument in favor of a Green New Deal substantiated with evidence is not in itself sufficient proof that it is impossible. The reality is that “proof” is a unique, limited aspect of debate and outside of the abstract realms of mathematics and logic all arguments on both side of any debate will have limits to which they can either prove or disprove their position. Instead the concept of “proof” in real world debate rests on concepts of the “reasonable doubt” threshold and “weight of evidence” and apply equally to both sides. While a weak “weight of evidence” on one side of an argument may help swap opinions towards the opposite side’s case, it is not sufficient or equivalent to presentation of evidence in defense of the other side of the argument.

Circular reasoning

Circular reasoning is where the conclusions trace back to the premise of the argument

Carbon capture is not yet cost competitive and therefore not a viable option. Since there are no viable options for renewable energy in Singapore, it is a bad idea to raise the carbon tax meaninglessly if it there are no choices to select from, it will just lead to a broad cost increase with no change to emissions

This argument is flawed because the starting statement referring to the viability of carbon capture is dependent on the carbon tax level. Raising the carbon tax price would create the conditions for carbon capture to be viable so using the high cost of carbon capture as an ends to justify lower carbon tax rate is circular reasoning.

Red Herring

The term red herring derives from a tactic that fugitives would employ to evade scent hounds. A fragrant fish or “red herring” would be thrown on the trail to distract the hounds from following the scent of the fugitive. In debate, a red herring is a presentation of a controversial or unrelated fact for the purpose of diverting from the main argument

Singapore imports a majority of its water and the state is doing a lot to tackle the water crisis, furthermore there are many companies pledging to plant trees in Singapore and the Government has passed legislation in 2019 for the Zero Waste Masterplan

This statement does not in any way refute or support any of the key arguments for more ambition on emissions reduction, but instead it diverts attention away from the main focus of the discussion to another topic.

Sunk Cost

Sunk costs are consequences from decisions in the past that have no bearing on future decisions.

Singapore has a lot of fixed assets on Jurong Island and it would be a bad outcome not to utilize them

Sunk costs are in the past and while they may be relevant emotionally, future decisions are based on the options available in the moment. The decision for how to manage Jurong Island should rest solely on the relative future risks and returns of different policy options that can be taken in the moment. Further expansion of investments in Jurong Island that create greater dependency and exposure to the oil and gas industry risk a major recession in the event of a bursting of the global carbon bubble and furthermore being seen as an antagonist to the Paris Agreement may lead to trade tensions and sanctions from Europe and the United States. These risks should be weighed against the implementation costs of retrofitting the island with carbon capture infrastructure and limiting further expansion in transportation fuels and oil and gas.

A Critique of Singapore’s Fourth Biennial Update Report to the Paris Agreement

This section presents the false and misleading statements from the Singapore’s Fourth Biennial Update Report published by NEA and promoted as official policy position by the National Climate Change Secretariat (NEA, 2018).

In the opening paragraph the legal precedence is established within the document to acknowledge the international case for action, the specific targets of the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5C and Singapore’s obligation to act responsibly towards the Paris Agreement and to contribute it’s fair share in the establishment of Nationally Declared Contributions. Also in the opening foreword the authority of the IPCC special report on 1.5C from October 2018 is established and mentioned explicitly.

Taken together these three statements from the IPCC report, the Paris Agreement and the Fourth Biennial Update Report provide sufficient evidence to conclude that given that Singapore is a highly developed economy is not doing its part to limit global warming to >1.5C.

IPCC report October 2018 summary for policy makers section C1

In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).

Paris Agreement Article 4.4 establish the basis for determination of “doing our part” declaring that developed economies are responsible for leading emissions reduction

Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.

Singapore Nationally Declared Contribution to the Paris Agreement

We work under the Paris Agreement to further reduce our emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030, and to stabilise our emissions with the aim of peaking around 2030.

#1 Cherry picking

The report omits key information from the Paris Agreement and the IPCC report which define in unambiguous quantifiable metrics the definitions of what is meant by “doing our part” in terms of emissions reductions NDCs.

#2 Red Herring

Although we only account for around 0.11% of global emissions

This is irrelevant information as neither the IPCC report nor the Paris Agreement provides states any mention of a state’s size either geographical or by emissions in respect to its obligation to NDC, the only thing that is explicitly stated regarding allocation of responsibility is by development status.

Prisoner’s Dilemma Free-rider to the Paris Agreement

Taken together this sentence and the next sentence can be interpreted as intentionally defecting or “free-riding” the Paris Agreement and using the excuse that the emissions are small and won’t make a difference anyways. This is analogous to a fisherman who takes more than his catch in a common pond with the argument that he is a small fisherman and “it won’t harm much”. While there is no legally enforceable body to hold them accountable, it nevertheless is an open free-riding policy.

#3 Unsubstantiated claim (opinion stated as fact)

As a responsible member of the international community, Singapore will play our part. [..] we are committed to contributing to the global effort to address climate change.

This statement is unsubstantiated, and the weight of the evidence instead supports the opposite claim that Singapore is not doing its part, since it is a developed economy and its NDCs are far from the targets defined in the October 2018 report that was cited at the beginning of the report.

#4 Cherry picking

Singapore will be the first country in Southeast Asia to implement a carbon tax from 2019

This statement is true, but it is omitting two important context points of information 1) Artificial limitation to Southeast Asia -Global warming is an international phenomenon and carbon taxes have been implemented in several countries around the world already 2) price level — for a tax to be effective its tariff rate must be set correctly in the right range, this statement neglects to inform that the price level of the carbon tax $4 vs $75 recommendation 3) low ambition NDCs. Taken together as a whole these 3 facts presents a more complete narrative that the carbon tax policy instrument is ineffective at achieving the requirements for the pace of emissions reductions

The carbon tax will send an economy-wide price signal to incentivise emission reductions and adoption of low-carbon technologies.

Another form of cherry picking, also unsubstantiated — this statement neglects to defend the choice of the price target by providing evidence of a reference to either the cost curve of available low carbon technologies that are relevant for Singapore such as CCUS, or to an outside recommended price level from international institutions such as the UN or the IMF. When considered in context the weight of the evidence refutes this claim and it is unlikely that this carbon tax will effectively incentivise emissions reductions to the level required from the IPCC report. A carbon tax rate of $4/ton is unlikely to effectively incentivise emissions reduction for CCUS which currently cost $60–100/ton as an example and is furthermore far lower than $75/ton which is the level recommended by the IMF to effectively incentivise emissions reduction.

#5 False dichotomy, opinion stated as fact (unsubstantiated claim)

Given Singapore’s small size and dense urban landscape, there are challenges to using alternative energy sources such as solar, nuclear, and wind energy.

This statement contains both a false dichotomy (solar, wind energy) and unsubstantiated claim (nuclear)

False dichotomy — The complete set of choices available for states provided in the IPCC report are carbon capture, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, biofuels and land based sequestration. Of all of these choices carbon capture and nuclear do not require large land areas and are recommended for dense industrial centers such as Singapore.

Unsubstantiated claim — nuclear power plants have been installed in close proximity and with moderate land footprints in many urban cities throughout the world — such as three mile island in Pittsburg, so land area and nuclear energy are not inherently in conflict in the same sense of the physical and performance limitations of solar and wind energy.

#6 opinion stated as fact (unsubstantiated claim)

Such difficulties in switching to alternatives are recognised by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This statement, taken in context with the prior sentence and the wording of the guideline documentation provided by the UNFCCC is false. The UNFCC does not provide any such guidance specifying that states with small territorial size are excluded from their obligation to reduce emissions.

What is stated in the guide for preparing NDCs leaves much of the interpretation to the individual states, with some guidance that the national circumstances should consider for geography, biodiversity, population density and economic development status, and available human, financial and technical resources (UNFCCC, 2003)

This section (national circumstances) could contain the following information:

• Geographical characteristics, including climate, forests, land use and other environmental characteristics
• Population: growth rates, distribution, density and other vital statistics
• Economy, including energy, transport, industry, mining, tourism, agriculture, fisheries, waste, health and services sector
• Education, including scientific and technical research institutions
• Any information considered relevant by the Party, e.g. information relating to Article 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10, of the Convention

Continuing from the main theme, the guide further emphasizes the role of development status in the national circumstances that it explicitly refers to the HDI statistical rankings as a guide for states to refer to to include in their national circumstances section.

#6 opinion stated as fact (unsubstantiated claim)

However, there are limits to how much more emissions can be reduced by switching fuels, as natural gas currently constitutes about 95% of our fuel mix for electricity generation.

This statement is false or unsubstantiated, carbon capture is an additional measure available to further reduce emissions, among others such as electricity imports from ASEAN power grid renewables and nuclear energy. Furthermore both carbon capture and nuclear are recommended by the IPCC as a requirement in order to stay within the 1.5C limit. The only limits are of political will to adopt the carbon tax rates that would incentivise the adoption, but it would not be obvious to any reader that political limits is what is referred to in this context.

The remainder of the report continues to elaborate on similar false and misleading claims that are established in the executive summary and foreword and further comprehensive review will not be provided here

Common myths and misleading statements

1. Singapore is only 0.1%
2. As a small city-state there are limited options for renewables
3. Singapore needs to grow its economy and a higher carbon tax could slow economic growth
4. To reduce emissions, individual behavior needs to change
5. The PAP will not agree to full compliance to the Paris Agreement, they have too much political ties to the petrochemical industry and they will try to censor or arrest dissenting views

#1

Singapore is only 0.1% of global emissions

1 — free-riding moral hazard, 2 — Red Herring

This statement must be taken in context with the adoption of a policy that falls short of scientific NDC targets and IMF carbon tax rates.

Stated another way

We are only 0.1%, so it won’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things whether we defect or
whether we cooperate

This is a classic example of the moral hazard of free-riders in Prisoners Dilemma. If all signatories to the Paris Agreement were to apply the same logic and defect on these grounds the Agreement would collapse and lead to a catastrophic social outcome. By using this excuse the state is openly admitting to defecting on the state’s obligation to the Paris Agreement — unapologetically making free-riding an official state policy. The statement is also irrelevant information since the size of emissions is not factored anywhere in the language of the Paris Agreement or the UNFCCC guidelines for the determination of NDCs.

#2

As a small city-state there are limited options for renewables

1 — false dichotomy

The word limit here is ambiguous and misleading as some may misinterpret limit to be in a physical or technological sense, which is false. Relative to other cities in a similar situation, Singapore has economic surplus tax base from businesses to finance a carbon tax at <1% of GDP from and the technology is available for implementation at scale. Given sufficient pricing of carbon tax as recommended by the IMF at $75/tCO2eq, there are at least four policy implementations available to meet the Paris Agreement scientific targets for 1.5C — carbon capture, ASEAN renewables imports, nuclear and financed emissions reductions purchased from other trade partners. Financial resources are not limiting, technology is not limiting, physical resources are not limiting, political will however is limiting, and only in that sense can the statement be interpreted as true.

#3

Singapore needs to grow its economy and a higher carbon tax could slow economic growth

1 — opinion stated as fact, 2 — Red Herring

The first statement that Singapore needs to grow its economy is an opinion stated as fact. It is a fact that GDP growth has a strong historical empirical relationship to energy consumption. The statement however is ambiguous in that the most common use of this argument implies a substitution of “GDP growth” for “economic growth”, which are not the same thing. A complete review of the literature will show that there are arguments for and against the value of setting GDP growth as a top priority of national ambition. The argument is more compelling for low development economies and becomes weaker for mature economies. There are also arguments for and against the claim that mitigation may slow down short term GDP growth. Green New Deal Keynesian policy proposals in the US and the EU are attempts to use a stimulus package as a policy instrument to achieve economic transformations while simultaneously sustaining GDP growth. This question however was acknowledged in the beginning of the report as an open question. For this reason citations and references to support these claims are not provided in this version of the report because in either case the argument is irrelevant — even in a pessimistic assumption of GDP recession as a consequence of early mitigation the consensus among economists and scientists is that the economic imperative for limiting warming to <1.5C to safeguard long term GDP is stronger than the short term risks to GDP growth ambitions. Based on the wording of the Paris Agreement, the more relevant question is to consider the degree to which economic growth is more or less critical for Singapore vs other signatories. The wording of the Paris Agreement unambiguously defines development status as the distinguishing feature of how to rank parties by their relative obligation to lead and pay for mitigation and further evidence to support this claim is the reference of HDI in the UNFCCC guide for reporting national circumstances. Singapore is rated in the top 90% percentile of human development “highly developed” at 0.932 so the evidence supports the opposite claim, that “relative to other economies, in the context of the Paris Agreement, due to its high development status Singapore’s imperative to lead emissions reductions outweighs is short term GDP growth interests.”

#4

To reduce emissions, individual behavior needs to change

1 — false dichotomy, 2 — Red Herring, 3 — Cherry picking

Individual behavioral change is necessary for emissions reduction this is a true statement. The statement does not in itself refute the main argument however. At the global level, policy instruments may place pressure either at the production or the consumption end of the value chain, and the best approach is to do both. Cities function as producers and consumers of emissions, and more developed economies like Singapore have a larger share of consumption vs production emissions so it is valid for Singapore to consider policy instruments aimed at changing consumer behavior. If there are no pre-existing international agreements to sort out these kinds of international complexities this would be an interesting point of discussion. There are in fact international agreements that have settled this question (The Paris Agreement and its predecessor Kyoto Protocol) so this statement is selectively leaving out this key piece of information. Due to the complexity of tracing international Scope 3 emissions through the supply chain and other historical considerations, The Paris Agreement scope is limited to Scope 1 emissions, which intentionally places the weight of policies that control emissions at the source.

#5

The PAP will not agree to full compliance to the Paris Agreement, they have too much political ties to the petrochemical industry and they will try to censor or arrest dissenting views

1 — Opinion stated as fact 2 — Red Herring

While there may be substantive evidence supporting this claim based on an objective analysis of policy history and precedence in other areas such as the international tax haven policies in banking identity protection, it is not exhaustive proof that future policy cannot be influenced on moral or economic grounds. Furthermore, the statement does not refute the conclusion, it only shifts the attention towards the open question of political will which for the purpose of this report is an uncontested open question.

References

BBC news 1 May 2019 UK Parliament declares climate emergency
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677

Brookings Institute, 2018 Global Metro Monitor 2018
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Brookings-Metro_Global-Metro-Monitor-2018.pdf

Blunden, 2019 State of the Climate in 2019 : Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 100, №9
https://www.ametsoc.net/sotc2018/Socin2018_lowres.pdf

C40 Cities 2018 Consumption GHG emissions of C40 cities
https://www.c40.org/researches/consumption-based-emissions

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Last accessed 2019)
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CONS1963

Chua Beng Huat, Straits Times May 11 2018 tackling income inequality academics give their views
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/tackling-inequality-vigorously

CIA world factbook — gini index accessed 05 Dec 2019
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

Climate Action Tracker — Singapore country profile
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/singapore/

Dawson, 2010 On testing Kuznets’ economic growth hypothesis
https://doi.org/10.1080/135048597355159

Druckman, 2016 Understanding Households as Drivers of Carbon Emissions

Finenko, 2016 Regional Electricity Market Integration in ASEAN
https://www.iitk.ac.in/ime/anoops/FOR%20-%2016/PPTs/Day%20-%205%20-%20Singapore/Mr.%20Anton%20Finenko%20-21%20-%20ASEAN%20Regional%20Electricity%20Market.pdf

Global CCS Institute, 2017 The global status of CCS
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2017-Global-Status-Report.pdf

Heritage Foundation — Economic data by country 2019
https://www.heritage.org/index/explore?view=by-variables&u=637109184479418972

Hobbes, 1651 The Leviathan (quoted from Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2018 Special report on global warming of 1.5 C
https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019 “Oceans report” The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf

International Monetary Fund — Sep 12 2019 Fiscal Monitor : How to mitigate climate change
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/FM/Issues/2019/09/12/fiscal-monitor-october-2019

International Monetary Fund, 2019 Macroeconomic and Financial Policies for Climate Change Mitigation: A Review of the Literature
https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/WP/2019/wpiea2019185-print-pdf

Land Transport Authority (LTA) Singapore 2015 Singapore Land Transit in Brief 2015
https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/FactsandFigures/Statistics%20in%20Brief%202015%20FINAL.pdf

Mahmud, Aqil Haziq Straits Times 2019 — Singapore aims to produce 30% of its nutritional needs by 2030
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-produce-30-own-food-up-from-10-nutritional-needs-11320426

MIT, 2018 — The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World
http://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-energy-carbon-constrained-world/

Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) — Official Foreign Reserves accessed 2019
https://www.mas.gov.sg/statistics/reserve-statistics/official-foreign-reserves

Mori Memorial Foundation Institute for Urban Strategies, 2019 Global Power City Index Report 2019
http://mori-m-foundation.or.jp/pdf/GPCI2019_summary.pdf

Moran, D., Kanemoto K; Jiborn, M., Wood, R., Többen, J., and Seto, K.C. (2018) Carbon footprints of 13,000 cities. Environmental Research Letters DOI: 10.1088/1748–9326/aac72a.

National Environment Agency (NEA). 2018. Singapore’s Fourth National Communication and Third Biennial Update Report.
https://www.nccs.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/singapore's-fourth-national-communication-and-third-biennial-update-repo.pdf

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Accessed 2019) North Atlantic named storm history
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/images/AtlanticStormTotalsTable.pdf

OECD NEA, 2010. Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with Those from Other Energy
https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6861-comparing-risks.pdf

OECD Statistics Cities dataset, accessed 2019
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CITIES

Osborne, Martin J.; Rubinstein, Ariel (12 Jul 1994). A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT. p. 14. ISBN 9780262150415.

Palmer, 2010. Nuclear power in Singapore.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19373260903343449

Public Utilities Board (PUB) 2019 Our water our future
https://www.pub.gov.sg/Documents/PUBOurWaterOurFuture.pdf

United States Office of Management and Budget, 2016 Social cost of greenhouse gasses
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/oira/social-cost-of-carbon

UNFCCC — 2003 reporting on climate change — user manual for guidelines on national communications from non Annex-I parties
https://unfccc.int/resource/userman_nc.pdf

Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS) 2013 Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Roadmap for Singapore
https://www.nccs.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/solar-photovoltaic-roadmap-for-singapore-a-summary.pdf

Singapore constitution — version as of 05 Dec 2019
https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CONS1963#pr148I-

Statistics Singapore accessed 2019 Population and population structure
https://www.singstat.gov.sg/find-data/search-by-theme/population/population-and-population-structure

Statistics Singapore, 2013 Household expenditures survey 2013
https://www.singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/households/hes1213.pdf

Stern, 2008 The Economics of Climate Change
http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

UK learning summarizing Rousseau, 1762 The Social Contract
https://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/21cc/utopia/revolution1/rousseau1/rousseau.html

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2018 Human Development Report 2018 — Human Development Indices and Indicators
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme, 2019 Emissions Gap Report
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019

United Nations Human Rights Council, 2019 climate change and poverty : report on extreme poverty and human rights
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session41/Documents/A_HRC_41_39.docx

United Nations, 2015 Paris Agreement
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf

World Bank, dataset GDP per capita accessed 2019
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=MY-SG-Z4&start=1960&end=1965