01 December, 2019
I am writing on behalf of my co-organisers of the SG Climate Rally. We refer to the commentary, “In calling for action on climate crisis, it is not enough to say ‘listen to the science’” (Nov 25).
SG Climate Rally acknowledges the need for climate movements to listen to broader social concerns. As part of these efforts, we published a statement last week in support of the food delivery workers affected by the ban on personal mobility devices on footpaths.
[Lip service followed by an example of tokenism.]
In our statement, we called for greater consultation with affected groups in the Government’s policymaking process and for improved efforts in building the infrastructure for a "car-lite" society.
[So how much thought and effort is required to say "greater consultation!" and "build a car-lite society!"]
We recognise that climate policies, especially a carbon tax, have the potential to raise living costs for ordinary citizens. Recent history has shown that poorly planned policies have sparked social unrest.
In France, for example, President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to raise the tax on diesel pushed the living expenses for lower-income groups beyond what they could afford, leading to the nationwide yellow-vest protests.
These protests underscore the need for governments to be accountable to their people and for questions of inequality to be considered when formulating policies.
[Note: govts NEED to be accountable to people. Activist are just... activating...]
Yet we take issue with the author’s assertion that we have failed to pay attention to broader societal concerns.
In particular, the author refers to our call to increase Singapore’s carbon tax beyond the current S$5-per-tonne rate, and suggests that “it is unclear whether these young protesters are prepared to bear the costs of these decisions”.
We advocate a higher carbon tax on the basis that it better accounts for the environmental costs of emitting greenhouse gases, which the current rate does not adequately reflect.
With a higher carbon tax, polluters would be more incentivised to reduce emissions. The reasoning behind the carbon tax is that polluters should pay, and not, as the author alleges with some condescension, “our parents”.
We are aware that carbon taxes have tended to be passed on to households and consumers. Electricity retailers, such as Geneco, have made clear that they intend to do so. It is, however, not a given that these increased costs will necessarily make the average or lower-income citizens worse off.
[Wow. Let's see. His argument goes like this: 1) polluters should pay. 2) Yes, we KNOW these taxes TEND to get pass on to consumers. 3) "Polluters" have STATED that they intend to pass the tax to consumers. BUT... it is not a given that these increase cost will make... citizens worse off!
I dunno what to say to such.... "logic".]
Today, Singapore’s industries are responsible for 60 per cent of our total emissions, most of which originate from the oil and gas sector. The majority of carbon tax revenues will come from them.
[And in the next paragraph, he reverts to the "polluters will pay". What is he? Young Trump?]
With the right policies, the tax revenues generated can be redistributed to ordinary citizens in an equitable manner and can also be used to fund green initiatives.
[Oh! He's resorting to "magic policies". Well, then. He has OBVIOUSLY made his point. At least sufficient and adequate in his mind.]
Our calls to action have been crafted to embrace the broader societal concerns that the author has raised. They are reflected in a range of measures, including ensuring a just transition for workers in the oil and gas industry and holding regular consultations with citizens from all groups in society.
By reducing our calls to action to a simple increase in Singapore’s carbon tax, the author has painted a selective and misleading picture of SG Climate Rally's cause.
[Climate Change is a serious issue. It needs clever people with good ideas, and a clear plan for implementing those ideas.
Maybe the author of "it's not enough to say 'listen to the science'" did 'strawman' the SG Climate's Rally to just "increase the carbon tax to $185" (I don't think the author did. But that's another argument off-tangent). If so, the best way to address it is to explain, in excruciating detail how they proposed to, for example, ensure "a just transition for workers in the oil and gas industry".
So many questions. Transition to what. Does that mean we stop using oil and gas? How do we produce electricity then? And don't say solar. Okay, say you said solar, how? How will we generate 6500 mWh of power EVERY DAY? How large an areas will need to be covered by Photo-voltaic (PV) panels? What if it's cloudy? For two days? Or rains for 3 days straight? Batteries? How many will we need? To cover a day without sun? Or two days?
What exactly did this letter writer assert regarding the SG Climate's Call to Action?
1) "...we published a statement last week in support of the food delivery workers affected by the ban on personal mobility devices on footpaths."
2) "...we called for greater consultation with affected groups in the Government’s policymaking process."
3) "we called for... improved efforts in building the infrastructure for a "car-lite" society."
4) "...tax revenues generated can be redistributed to ordinary citizens in an equitable manner and can also be used to fund green initiatives."
5) "...a just transition for workers in the oil and gas industry..."
6) "...holding regular consultations with citizens from all groups in society."
I have underlined the CALL TO ACTION words in his reply. Long on sentiment. Short on details.
All talk. No ideas. No substance. Angst and Anger but no concrete action. ]
No comments:
Post a Comment