prime commentary
THE STRAITS TIMES THURSDAY, AUGUST 28 2008 PAGE A2
쐽
VIEWPOINTS
WE SAY
After Anwar's win, is
real change probable?
The win of Mr Anwar Ibrahim in a
Penang by-election reconfirms that a
tidal shift for an inclusive society is
well under way. It is an open contest
which party has the nerve and the
ideas to bring real change about.
쐽 EDITORIAL PAGE A32
Put ‘eco’ back in ‘economics’
Growing in a green way
means short-term costs
but long-term benefits
BY JESSICA CHEAM
COLUMNS
Perk up HDB design
HDB architecture should
overcome its mechanical
appearance through art,
says Andy Ho.
쐽 REVIEW PAGE A33
It’s a small, small world
It’s hard to be a stranger in
a strange land these days,
says Stephanie Yap.
쐽 LIFE! PAGE C4
OUR READER SAYS
Answers to birth dearth
Reader Anmari Van Nieuwenhove says
a shift in ethos and a review of
gender roles is needed, while reader
Jennifer Wee suggests building on Asian
values where men and women are
complementary but not equal.
쐽 FORUM PAGE A37
ONLINE BLOGS
www.straitstimes.com
쐽 Ravi Velloor observes
politics in India:
Bollywood-style.
쐽 Bhagyashree Garekar goes
shopping on the fringe of
the Democratic National
Convention in Denver.
쐽 Nirmal Ghosh recounts the
night when the
Government House in
Bangkok rocks.
I RECENTLY came to the conclusion that
“growth” is overrated. Or at least, that
conventional definitions of economic
growth need updating.
To quote from Canadian environmental activist David Suzuki, we need to put
the “eco” back into economics.
Both concepts, he notes, are derived
from the same root word “oikos” (eco)
which literally means house – that is, the
environment we live in.
The word “economics” is a combination of “oikos” and “nomos” (rules, management). Thus, economics means house
management. Somewhere along the way
however, we have forgotten about the
“eco” in economics.
What triggered these thoughts was the
recent public exercise to gather ideas for
a blueprint on Singapore’s green journey
for the next 10 years.
Since its debut on July 28, the Sustainable Singapore website has received 700
suggestions and counting, on issues ranging from solar energy and cycling, to the
country’s energy efficiency.
I noted with interest the quick assurances issued by the Government that Singapore’s green steps will be taken “in a
manner that will not upset economic development”. Finance Minister Tharman
Shanmugaratnam added: “What will not
be compromised is economic growth.”
Not that these statements are peculiar
to Singapore: they are not. They crop up
often in multilateral debates on greening
economies.
And for good reason: economic growth
is important, as it leads to increased
wealth and job security, all elements of a
happy and stable country.
As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
pointed out in his Rally speech, growth
gives us the resources to solve problems.
Singapore has used its wealth to move
towards greening its economy, such as by
making investments into environment-related research and development.
Still, the fear that economic growth
will be compromised hampers efforts to
go green faster.
When in town earlier this year, the UN
Environment Programme’s executive director Achim Steiner said to me: “You
can never expect a politician to say you’re
going to lose your job, or I’m going to
make your life more miserable, for the
sake of the environment.”
The sad fact, he added, is that “many
of those in charge of economies today exaggerate the cost of moving towards
greater sustainability, and under-represent the returns from such actions”.
“This has led many countries to defer
decisions about the future for far too long
and the result is it gets much more expensive,” he said.
So how to balance the costs and benefits in greening any economy? How much
gross domestic product (GDP) should be
sacrificed?
In conventional economics, environ-
PUNCHLINES
mental costs are treated as externalities
and unaccounted for.
Take China as an example. A recent Financial Times report highlighted its deteriorating environment as the “devastating price” it pays for its rampant growth.
While millions of citizens are lifted out
of poverty, “large swathes of the country” are being “devastated and unable to
support even basic ecologies”.
Some reports put China’s economic
losses from environmental degradation at
some 5 to 10 per cent of gross GDP.
It is an example of how measuring
growth by GDP figures alone is a “narrow, artificial indicator” that captures
economic activity but does not account
for real costs, said Mr Steiner.
The good news is, more economists
are starting to realise this. The United Nations is working with leading universities
and the World Bank to create a new
wealth indicator that will take into account the drawing down of “natural capital” from the environment.
As we in Singapore start thinking
about sustainable development, we
should keep in mind these changing definitions of wealth and growth.
While we try to perfect the art of “balancing costs and benefits”, we should also ask what we are defining as the reasonable cost of greening.
Are we willing to take the necessary
steps, or will our “greenspeak” just be lip
service?
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying
we should stop growing. Indeed, the
green movement presents tremendous
growth opportunities for us in the clean
energy, water and environmental sectors.
All I am saying is we can grow in a
much greener way, which might cost
more in the short-term, but offer much
longer-term returns.
And we must dare to do it.
There are already suggestions aplenty.
Top of the list would be a greener tax
structure to encourage Singaporeans to
go green, similar to the pro-family tax
structure unveiled earlier last week that
aims to get Singaporeans to make more
babies.
Under this tax structure could be rebates for adopting energy saving devices,
concessions on income from carbon trading, and tax incentives for efficient and
pollution-reducing equipment for businesses.
Pricing structures for utilities can also
be made greener. For example, electricity
can be made more expensive at higher
consumption volumes.
Some countries such as Sweden and
Norway are ahead of the curve, adopting
bold environmental policies that others
have avoided (like a direct tax on carbon
emissions). They have proven that it
works.
One country Singapore could take a
leaf from: Switzerland. There, residents
have to pay for how much rubbish they
throw out. Here, we pay for someone to
take our rubbish away, for the waste to
be landfilled or incinerated. But we do
not pay for the damage or costs to the environment our rubbish causes.
If, like Switzerland, we factored the
cost of our rubbish into daily life, our actions will be a lot more different. People
will start factoring the cost of their waste
and recycling will come naturally.
Such are the changes we can suggest
and lobby for, during this nationwide call
for ideas to make Singapore greener.
Put the “eco” back to economics, and
chances are, we’ll get it right.
[email protected]