Global Warming
I read with amusement when I came across Andy Ho’s article this morning in the Straits Times on why Singapore should be “cool” about global warming. The article made a lot of interesting points and claims which I wasn’t too comfortable with, and so I have decided to discuss them here.
The first point he made was that Singapore should not be under either Annex I or Annex II based on the weird premise that “a tiger economy is still part of the developing world”. To me, this is a really strong statement in asserting that Singapore should still be considered as part of the developing world. Well, I agree that there are just too many privileges that Singapore has to give up if we consider ourselves a developed country (and also, loads of burdens that we will incur), but there is actually no sensible argument in trying to claim that our economy is still part of the developing world. In what respects is Singapore’s economy similar to a developing country? In fact, based on our economy alone, Singapore is much more similar to a developed nation. But, I agree with the next line in which he quoted from MM Lee “that 'it's not possible to just treat (Singapore) like an ordinary country”. BUT, I will like to highlight that no country in this world considers itself as an “ordinary country”. Every country, in its own interests, will certainly claim that it is unique and different from others. In fact, I can clearly see why countries are over the world (and not just Singapore) will oppose Annex I and Annex II. I mean, being under the lists lead to really stringent constraints on the economy, and no country in this world is happy to see itself sacrificing for other countries, especially since they have other issues of their own which they will prefer to care more about. Now, I can easily digress into a lengthy discussion of whether the carbon emission caps are indeed set at an adequate level, and on whether it is feasible and morally acceptable for developed nations to ‘transfer wealth’ to developing countries (which is actually a very saddening thought if you were to recall the 700 billion that was spent by Obama in saving the financial sector), but I shall return to the rest of Andy’s arguments.
I was pretty disturbed by the line “Much of its carbon emissions comes from manufacturing things for use in other countries, not domestically”. Is he trying to justify the fact that because others are paying us emit carbon, we should not bother? I do wonder where the logic in that is. To draw an analogy, he’s likening that it’s ok to commit manslaughter if someone pays for and wants it. To me, this line is just a fallacious argument.
And of course, that famous line in which he quotes “Singapore's diminutive size means its efforts make little difference to global warming”. Yes, Singapore is small. But does that equal to our efforts being of no significance? Undoubtedly, when you think of countries like US, Germany, China, our efforts will be puny. But this is a collective action problem. Getting Singapore involved can be thought of as sending the right signal to other countries (and actually, it is highly possible that a tipping point exists somewhere that if X countries do support the agreement, the other remaining countries will follow as well). After all, if we were to follow his trend of thought, then we as individuals should not bother about environmental conservation simply because our individual efforts are too insignificant to make a difference. But, I’m sure we have all grew up learning about how if everyone plays his part, we can make a difference. So again, I am not convince at all with his argument.
What irks me the most is his argument on how climate science is still not an exact science, and that because the evidence on whether human actions are causing global warming is still dubious, we should be cautious with any binding commitments (that he claim will sacrifice economic growth) on reducing carbon emissions. Fair enough, there is validity in the statement that
1) Climate science is not an exact science
2) The evidence of how exactly we are causing global warming is still not very clear
3) We will potentially sacrifice economic growth if we just adopt measures without much though (especially if we are talking about 50-85% cut).
But, let me point out some other interesting aspects. Firstly, any subject that is still not precise or exact does not mean we should ignore it. Economics is equally imprecise, but why is it that people trusts economists so much when economists claim that certain measures will boost growth? Also, even though the evidence on exactly how human actions are causing global warming is still dubious, but I wonder whether he hopes to see it becoming obvious, before taking any action? Wouldn’t that be too late? I mean a lot of times, people take precautions even though the results are unclear so as to prepare themselves for the worst case scenario (that’s why insurance exists). I think as citizens of the earth, we should start doing this too (and so play our part in helping to care for the environment and being more responsible for our actions). Lastly, I’m not sure of the exact details of the Copenhagen agreement, but yes, cutting emissions by 50-85% sounds really drastic (especially if they are immediate cuts!). But, a sensible route is to set a target of cutting emissions by 50-85% by a certain target year, guided by sustainable and feasible outlines of how the countries should go about doing. Even if the whole world doesn’t want to cut emissions, we should at least invest money in clean technologies that will enable us to cut emissions should we need to in future.
To summarise, I think readers should think through Andy’s arguments, and I hope many do not interpret his message as one in which Singapore should not care about environmental issues for the sake of economic growth (now, this is the other point which I haven’t hit on, and that is what is the point of economic growth? Is it purely to earn more money, or to live better lives? And if living better lives is at stake, we should be caring about sustainable economic growth, and not just about dollars and cents!). The right message to take will be yes, Singapore should not just rush head-on into the Copenhagen agreement. Instead, we should take a more balanced approach, and see how the other countries are responding to it. There is after all, a lot of geo-politics involved. Even if Singapore does not actively play a role in the Copenhagen talks, we should still be educating our people on caring for the environment, and investing money in technologies that will result in sustainable economic growth. And, we should also be playing an active role in reducing our own carbon emissions, even if no binding commitments are made.
Aside: This problem of a global treaty is similar to a Prisoner’s dilemma problem, in which no country wishes to be penalised for adopting the right policy, while the other countries don’t (imagine if Singapore supports the treaty, but the US says no, and so our earth will continue to warm up). The trick is therefore on how can we solve this international collective action problem, especially in the absence of a world government (for domestic issues, laws are in place to avoid this conflict). Sad to say, the optimal strategy happens to be tic-for-tac, and I guess the world can only hope for the best, cause if not, I shudder to think of the world that the future generations will live in.
The first point he made was that Singapore should not be under either Annex I or Annex II based on the weird premise that “a tiger economy is still part of the developing world”. To me, this is a really strong statement in asserting that Singapore should still be considered as part of the developing world. Well, I agree that there are just too many privileges that Singapore has to give up if we consider ourselves a developed country (and also, loads of burdens that we will incur), but there is actually no sensible argument in trying to claim that our economy is still part of the developing world. In what respects is Singapore’s economy similar to a developing country? In fact, based on our economy alone, Singapore is much more similar to a developed nation. But, I agree with the next line in which he quoted from MM Lee “that 'it's not possible to just treat (Singapore) like an ordinary country”. BUT, I will like to highlight that no country in this world considers itself as an “ordinary country”. Every country, in its own interests, will certainly claim that it is unique and different from others. In fact, I can clearly see why countries are over the world (and not just Singapore) will oppose Annex I and Annex II. I mean, being under the lists lead to really stringent constraints on the economy, and no country in this world is happy to see itself sacrificing for other countries, especially since they have other issues of their own which they will prefer to care more about. Now, I can easily digress into a lengthy discussion of whether the carbon emission caps are indeed set at an adequate level, and on whether it is feasible and morally acceptable for developed nations to ‘transfer wealth’ to developing countries (which is actually a very saddening thought if you were to recall the 700 billion that was spent by Obama in saving the financial sector), but I shall return to the rest of Andy’s arguments.
I was pretty disturbed by the line “Much of its carbon emissions comes from manufacturing things for use in other countries, not domestically”. Is he trying to justify the fact that because others are paying us emit carbon, we should not bother? I do wonder where the logic in that is. To draw an analogy, he’s likening that it’s ok to commit manslaughter if someone pays for and wants it. To me, this line is just a fallacious argument.
And of course, that famous line in which he quotes “Singapore's diminutive size means its efforts make little difference to global warming”. Yes, Singapore is small. But does that equal to our efforts being of no significance? Undoubtedly, when you think of countries like US, Germany, China, our efforts will be puny. But this is a collective action problem. Getting Singapore involved can be thought of as sending the right signal to other countries (and actually, it is highly possible that a tipping point exists somewhere that if X countries do support the agreement, the other remaining countries will follow as well). After all, if we were to follow his trend of thought, then we as individuals should not bother about environmental conservation simply because our individual efforts are too insignificant to make a difference. But, I’m sure we have all grew up learning about how if everyone plays his part, we can make a difference. So again, I am not convince at all with his argument.
What irks me the most is his argument on how climate science is still not an exact science, and that because the evidence on whether human actions are causing global warming is still dubious, we should be cautious with any binding commitments (that he claim will sacrifice economic growth) on reducing carbon emissions. Fair enough, there is validity in the statement that
1) Climate science is not an exact science
2) The evidence of how exactly we are causing global warming is still not very clear
3) We will potentially sacrifice economic growth if we just adopt measures without much though (especially if we are talking about 50-85% cut).
But, let me point out some other interesting aspects. Firstly, any subject that is still not precise or exact does not mean we should ignore it. Economics is equally imprecise, but why is it that people trusts economists so much when economists claim that certain measures will boost growth? Also, even though the evidence on exactly how human actions are causing global warming is still dubious, but I wonder whether he hopes to see it becoming obvious, before taking any action? Wouldn’t that be too late? I mean a lot of times, people take precautions even though the results are unclear so as to prepare themselves for the worst case scenario (that’s why insurance exists). I think as citizens of the earth, we should start doing this too (and so play our part in helping to care for the environment and being more responsible for our actions). Lastly, I’m not sure of the exact details of the Copenhagen agreement, but yes, cutting emissions by 50-85% sounds really drastic (especially if they are immediate cuts!). But, a sensible route is to set a target of cutting emissions by 50-85% by a certain target year, guided by sustainable and feasible outlines of how the countries should go about doing. Even if the whole world doesn’t want to cut emissions, we should at least invest money in clean technologies that will enable us to cut emissions should we need to in future.
To summarise, I think readers should think through Andy’s arguments, and I hope many do not interpret his message as one in which Singapore should not care about environmental issues for the sake of economic growth (now, this is the other point which I haven’t hit on, and that is what is the point of economic growth? Is it purely to earn more money, or to live better lives? And if living better lives is at stake, we should be caring about sustainable economic growth, and not just about dollars and cents!). The right message to take will be yes, Singapore should not just rush head-on into the Copenhagen agreement. Instead, we should take a more balanced approach, and see how the other countries are responding to it. There is after all, a lot of geo-politics involved. Even if Singapore does not actively play a role in the Copenhagen talks, we should still be educating our people on caring for the environment, and investing money in technologies that will result in sustainable economic growth. And, we should also be playing an active role in reducing our own carbon emissions, even if no binding commitments are made.
Aside: This problem of a global treaty is similar to a Prisoner’s dilemma problem, in which no country wishes to be penalised for adopting the right policy, while the other countries don’t (imagine if Singapore supports the treaty, but the US says no, and so our earth will continue to warm up). The trick is therefore on how can we solve this international collective action problem, especially in the absence of a world government (for domestic issues, laws are in place to avoid this conflict). Sad to say, the optimal strategy happens to be tic-for-tac, and I guess the world can only hope for the best, cause if not, I shudder to think of the world that the future generations will live in.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home