This was prepared for the debate hosted by the Singapore Power Shift to discuss the pros and cons of both approaches.

1. on creative climate communication. I'm here today
because I used to work in the carbon markets, both
in the private sector as well as in a non-profit
looking at pro-poor, low-carbon programs.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge how
amazed I am to be here where we are actually
having a debate because Singapore will be putting
a price on carbon.
Whether its a tax or trading scheme, the fact that we
are putting a price on it is a fantastic step forwards.

2. Who is doing what?
ETS / Tax / Maybe
Source: World Bank, Ecofys and Vivid Economics.
2016. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing
2016 (October), by World Bank, Washington, DC.
Let's look at who is doing what – Green for
the those with emission trading schemes,
bue for those with carbon taxation, and
yellow for still thinking about it.
And now, we can add Singapore to the list!

3. Who's putting a price on carbon?
40 national
jurisdictions
+
over 20 cities,
states, regions
Source: World Bank, Ecofys and Vivid Economics. 2016. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2016 (October), by World Bank, Washington, DC.
13%
global GHG=
So, who's putting a price on carbon? So far,
not enough of the world. But, China is set
to roll our its national ETS in July this year,
which would be a game-changer. In the
absence of climate leadership from Europe
and the US, China is increasingly stepping
up to the plate.

4. What is a tonne of carbon
emissions worth?

5. Carbon prices of the world
Source: World Bank, Ecofys and
Vivid Economics. 2016.
State and Trends of Carbon Pricing
2016 (October), by World Bank,
Washington, DC.
SG$10 = US$7
SG$20 = US$14
This chart shows the price for a tonne of
carbon emissions (along the vertical axis),
across different jurisdictions.
Early indications for the Singapore carbon
tax ranges from $10-20 Sing dollars. That's
about US$7 – 14.
Looks pretty good, right?

6. What is the right price?
What is the right price? And by right price, I
mean, the price that will value tomorrow as
much as today – which is really hard for
humans to do because if I ask you “I'll give
you a dollar now, or two dollars next week,
which would you take?”
So I wanted to share an interesting research
report published by the U.S. Government,
but unfortunately...

7. www.whitehouse.gov
...er, all the climate science and research
has been wiped from the White House
website.

8. Interagency Working Group, U.S. Government,
2013, Technical Support Document:
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive
Order 12866 (Washington).
“...prices could be based on estimates of how much
worldwide damage each extra metric ton of carbon
dioxide causes through such things as agricultural
losses, rising sea levels, health costs, and output losses
from extreme weather. A U.S. government study
estimates these damages at about $50 a metric ton for
emissions in 2020 in current dollars.”
Source: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2015/12/parry.htm
Luckily, the IMF included a reference to it
in their report. It says that if we factor in
the true cost of the damage caused by
one tonne of carbon dioxide, you'd be
looking at a price of US$50.
Other recent published papers also
found that current carbon prices need
to be much higher to effect the change
we need.

9. Good start!
But need to ratchet up ambition

11. The right tool for the job?
$
Quantity
Do you fix the price, and set a carbon
tax?
Or do you fix a cap, a limit on how much
you can emit, through a trading
scheme?
In my view, either can achieve the same
result, it depends on how well they are
designed.

12. Development Dividend + 1 ton/yr
Now, be ause my background is in carbon trading, I wanted
to add just one thing, and that's the opportunity for a
development dividend. International carbon trading has
made feasible many amazing low-carbon programs,
enabling proof of concept for these to scale up regionally
across Africa and Asia. Before, when these programs
were dependent on just intermittent donor funding, they
didn't stand a chance. The carbon markets didn't just
bring $, they brought a clear methodology on how to do it,
transferable technology and best practices, and capital to
scale these programs up.
Here is a lady using a clean cookstove in Laos, which lets
her use less charcoal, saving fuel. It's efficient deisgn
means much less black smoke, a key cause of
respiratory disease, is breathed in by women and kids
during cooking. 1 clean cookstove saves 1 ton of
emissions per year.

13. Development Dividend + 1 ton/yr
This is a ceramic water filter made in
Laos. It means families drink clean
water, saving them from diarrhoea
which is the #1 danger for kids. It also
means they have cool water on
demand, and don't have to boil pond or
river water each time they want to
drink. 1 water filter saves 1 ton of
carbon dixode per year.

14. Development Dividend + 4 tons/yr
This is a female mason building a biogas
digestor in Vietnam. They are designed
for small rural farmers, and turns
animal and human waste into gas for
cooking, heating and lighting. It also
means women don't have to go into the
jungle when they want to go to the
toilet, as these usually can be installed
with a toilet attached.

15. 1) reduce emissions, 2) stimulate low-carbon R&D, and 3) make sure that itis
not regresive, i.e. low-income households are not paying more than their fair
share, then you most likely have to allow that you're not going to get it percect
the first time. This is where an adaptive, learn-by-doing mindset comes in.
Monitor the impact of whichever instruent you use, and iterate it to better meet
your goals. Also, remember there are other tools in the box, like
environmental legislation, to broaden the reach of a low-carbon focus across
more sectors.
Be Consistent – It's very hardfor industry and capita markets to invest resources
into a low-carbon future, only to find that two years later, the whole thing is
deprioritized, or dismantled by a new government. Long-term signals and
stability are important to nurture an emerging sector. This is why I'm glad we
are having this debate, because constituency support is also critical to
success.
Transparent and global standards – You want to make sure a tonne of carbon
dioxide in Singapore is the same as a tonne of carbon dioxide in Chinais the
same as a tonne in California. Apples to apples, oranges to oranges. This is
where monitoring, reporting and verification comes in, so that ultimately you
are developing a system that is aligned globally.

17. Why do we need a
global carbon price?
In case we forget why we need a carbon
price...here's a quick chart rem