A very interesting development, and I applaud the city of Paris for it. However, such a thing won't happen in Singapore, trust me.
Here, the unrelenting policy is GDP growth, growth and ever more growth, regardless of whether it's desirable or sustainable. For example... 7 million tourist arrivals per year? Not good enough, we must target 12 million by Year X. How? We need not one, but two casino resorts, including one that shoots out those mega-lasers every night that despoils the natural night sky. And now that we've gotten 14 million tourist arrivals a year, it's still not good enough, see for example this article from last year:
"Singapore hopes to attract up to 10 per cent more visitors this year.
The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) has projected visitor arrivals to be between 13.5 and 14.5 million this year, an increase of up to 10 per cent from 2011.
From a low of S$12.6 billion in 2009, tourism receipts have more than doubled to S$22.2 billion in 2011.
The government will pump S$640 million to seed new tourism projects over five years.
Three new areas of growth have also been identified."
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 71/1/.html
5.3 million residents in 700 sq km? Not good enough, we need 7 million in 17 yrs' time or else we won't be 'vibrant'. It really is a target, believe me. They are simply tone-deaf.
Business/economic interests here to keep all the lights running will certainly override any environmental concerns, and that's why I say what happened in Paris will never happen here. Microsoft will sooner adopt iOS than Singapore would do what Paris has done.
To put the relative mind-sets of the 2 countries in perspective, just consider what
Singapore's carbon emissions pledge at the 2009 Copenhagen Summit actually was, notwitstanding the blind praise that was accorded it by the local mainstream media. Let's compare the pledges:
(see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Unite ... _accord-22 )
European Union: To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%
below 1990 levels by 2020 unconditionally. Member country Germany has offered to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.
People's Republic of China: To cut CO2 emissions intensity by 40–45%
below 2005 levels by 2020.
Japan: To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25%
below 1990 levels by 2020.
United States: To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17%
below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.
You would note that the above are all actual cuts, i.e. reductions in emissions down to a level that is lower than what it was previously. Not just below the levels that were existing during the Copenhagen Summit in 2009, but in some cases 20% below levels 20 years ago. Those amounted to huge cuts.
What was Singapore's pledge?
Singapore: To reduce emissions by 16% by 2020,
based on business-as-usual levels.
Now that's cute. Because what Singapore said is that it would continue to grow and increase carbon emissions (See? 'growth'... and See? 'business') but the only sacrifice it is willing to make in the face of climate change would be to slow down the rate of growth such that by 2020, it would be lower than what it otherwise would have been. Put it another way, in 2009, Singapore said that by 2020, carbon emissions would be: (2009 levels + growth every year till 2020) minus 16 %.
Thus by 2020, Singapore's carbon emissions would actually be higher than what they were in 2009, not lower.
Do you see the essential difference? It may be subtly different at first sight, but it's a world of a difference. To me, that was just a publicity stunt, and the ST lapped it up blindly (I remember, and I was incredulous). Are we proud of the sacrificies we as a nation was willing to make compared with the rest of the world, and as our pledge in exchange? Is that how we intend to 'save the environment', or just pay lip-service?
If you think it has been mis-stated in Wikipedia, see the following from an official webpage:
"Singapore announced, just before the UNFCCC Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, a pledge to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16% below Business-as-Usual (BAU) levels in 2020"
http://app.nccs.gov.sg/page.aspx?pageid=55
And to remove any doubt about my interpretation of what it meant, I've just done a Google search and found this:
"
Singapore’s absolute carbon emissions in 2007 is about 40 million tonnes and from the statement above, it seems that the government projected that carbon emissions will reach 75 million tonnes in 2020 on a business-as-usual scenario. If Singapore takes action to reduce its emissions by 16%, the cut is equivalent to 12 million tonnes,
meaning that emissions would reach 63 million tonnes in 2020. This cut is not based on 1990 or 2005 levels, it is just based on 2020 levels, which implies that there is no peak in emissions and a drop thereafter. What we would expect is a continuous increase in absolute carbon emissions till 2020."
http://www.asiaisgreen.com/2009/12/03/t ... au-levels/
So, from 40m tonnes of carbon emissions in 2007 to 63m tonnes in 2020 is a growth of 58%! Certainly not a reduction.
That's why we're probably the only country that had ever officially labelled a recession as an instance of "negative growth". I remember that too!
![[smilie=crying2.gif]](./images/smilies/crying2.gif "crying2")