So it’s general elections season. It’s really interesting how this general election gives a great sense of a maturing democracy where more capable candidates are stepping forward, and emphasising the need to provide diversity of voices in the parliament. Peers of mine are stepping forward as candidates. I’m seeing even young independent candidates like Darryl Lo stepping forward.
The features of the Westminster Parliamentary system that Singapore inherited create a strong government because of the ‘first-past-the-post’ approach to voting. While the governing party can somehow gerrymander to optimise their support across constituencies, there is a natural limit to that as their vote share decreases.
The other feature is that the system calls non-ruling parties the ‘opposition’. It is perhaps a result of the typical debate terminology where they talk about proposition and opposition. As our democracy matures, we begin to see what it means more and more to be a loyal opposition, and not be misled by this somewhat ‘confrontational’ sense of the term.
Even as the country faces uncertainty from the global situation, this general election thus far fills me with a sense that Singapore is really ‘coming to age’ as a country that is learning to deal with challenges. Looking at the MPs coming from different walks of life and at a broader range of socio-economic backgrounds (at least from my perception), there is more a sense of ordinary people trying to make a difference in the society they live in, recognising it is no longer enough to slog for their own personal lives and expect the society to develop desirably.
I don’t think we’re being imaginative or aggressive enough with tackling climate issues. Nor are we thinking about how to sync-up our efforts to grow our economies, improve lives together with environmental conservation efforts. There are plenty of false dichotomies that result from how we’ve developed our economies. It’s haunting us and discouraging us from thinking in worthy directions for problem-solving.
One example of a dichotomy that may turn out to be false in the long run is the issue of food versus fuel. The food shortage problems today is driven by logistics and localised disaster more than aggregate unavailability or insufficiency. If anything, instead of trying to outright ban dedicated energy crops or crop-based feedstocks for biofuel production, it would be wiser to encourage a programme of reducing desertification and farming of marginal land with resilient crops that can be used as feedstocks for biofuels.
Another involves questioning of thermodynamically-unappealing solutions. Direct air capture (DAC) requires that energy is so cheap that you should mechanically capture the carbon dioxide from the air with machines. And yes, it doesn’t take as much land per unit of carbon captured. It could even compete with vegetation/forests. One could consider through the lens of this competition with nature: Forests takes about 860 square km of land to absorb 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide whereas if you were to build a DAC plant plus a solar farm powering it which can capture 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year would only take about 30 square km, which is ~3.4% of the land area. [my calculations are back-of-envelope and derived from unit figures here and here].
Yes, but then what about the limited lifespan and all the value chain emissions from making solar panels and DAC systems? Indeed, those trade-offs are worth thinking about, which is why we probably won’t advocate replacing natural habitats and forests with DAC. A forest is more than just sequestering carbon, but also provides other ecosystem services such as enhancing biodiversity, increasing groundwater supply, and even helping to clean the water and reducing the risks of desertification.
At some level, biofuels compete with synthetic or e-fuels; and biomethane perhaps is imagined to compete with hydrogen. But all of these are false dichotomies. The world needs us to keep working on different solutions and coordinate our efforts to scale them where they make sense. One can be purist about different things and get nowhere. Let’s try to lay out the trade-offs and work through those in specific contexts rather than seek to rule out solutions on the whole.
It’s probably been almost 15 years since the bancor proposal from JM Keynes has been last discussed and taken seriously. I’m wondering how are things progressing today. IMF probably has lost a lot of credibility over the last decade or so and the international financial system has just chugged along without any serious desire to be reformed.
So I wonder why it is not being thought about during this period where Trump is naively attempting to reduce the trade deficit (when of course, he could tackle the budget deficit more effectively himself, instead of relying on Elon and DOGE). Barry’s article on Project Syndicate provides some useful historical considerations though it isn’t that easy to compare US’ economy today with UK in the 1920s.
For one, the Triffin dilemma should be understood and examined rather than wished away by the American administration. Of course, they may think the trouble isn’t the dilemma as much as the issue of being an incumbent superpower on the brink of some decline. Instead of managing a soft landing or a proper way to unwind the situation gradually, the US feels like it’s trying to cling as hard as possible to the incumbency.
So the old fashion macroeconomics and financial issues are back to haunt us again because we haven’t dealt with them properly in the past.
There seems to be some conventional or prevailing wisdom about people having to keep to their lanes in different ways. So there are so-called norms for being a worker, being a father, a brother, a son and so on. Overlay that with the dimension of culture, including heritage and religion, you get a different set of different norms that as an individual, you are expected to display.
And so all my life I’ve somehow been defying classifications. One of the big divisions in school I had was between a ‘science’ student and an ‘art’ student. In high school, I defied that classification by doing arts (not just humanities but even fine arts, digital arts, and film) alongside all of the sciences (biology, physics, chemistry). When I entered junior college, I took two science subjects and two arts subjects as my main subjects.
And when it came to college, I just had to go to a school that offered a Bachelor of Science (BSc) in Economics when in most places, Economics was considered a Bachelor of Arts (BA). And then in my masters of economics, despite joining the advanced mathematics course, I also did a module in Economic & Business history.
I often recognise the value and importance of arts despite being an economist and finding it difficult to quantify the value that arts generate. Life in Singapore has become so draining and taxing on the human spirit often because we don’t know how arts play a role in helping us recover and restoring dimensions of our lives that we fail to see or identify. In recent times, as I caught plays from Checkpoint theatre and various films or shorts produced by Singaporeans about life in Singapore, even poetry that is written about life (eg. Government Haikus), I begin to see more and more that we all need arts more than we know. It could well be what will keep us alive.
I was watching Carl Sagan’s explanation of how the Greeks knew that the earth was spherical and how Eratosthenes (then head librarian of Alexandria) calculated the circumference of the Earth without even leaving his home country. It’s a brilliant one worth watching:
Brilliant men in the past would have mastered astronomy, geometry, and mathematics and played the role of military strategists. The ability to make observations in nature and draw interpretations were essential to determine the approach on the battlefield.
Yet, today, with technologies supporting the interpretation of observations and supplying multitude of information to leaders, there’s less of a need for the ‘strategist’. Rather, the tasks of looking and interpreting the various information is decentralised and the information comes together already processed for decision-making.
In such a world, we use resources to displace thinking. Eratosthenes will have to pit his wits against the rocket ships, satellites and scientists with funds for expedition who will say that his calculation yields a figure which is ~2.5% off the mark.
The role of strategic thinking has diminished in importance in the societies which are highly developed and well-resourced. Every now and then, someone comes from seemingly nowhere and overcome an incumbent with all the position, and the resources. A David and Goliath story. In many ways, DeepSeek is an example of that; especially when put in contrast with Sam Altman’s response to a question from an audience at a talk where he said that any worthy competitor to OpenAI will have to invest massive resources and datasets to train another LLM to achieve the prowess of ChatGPT.
I think we need to go back to a culture that appreciates strategic thinking and this sort of brilliance. And believe once again that it isn’t just about resources and overwhelming others with abundance. For those who feels limited by their resources, let the ability to think strategically provide a channel and means to defeat the giants.
As I continued my work promoting the circularity of recovering organic waste and residue for energy purposes (mostly through the production of various biofuels), I begin to see the challenge that this space face.
Right now, EU is putting strict rules around the feedstocks allowed for the biofuels that count towards decarbonisation in their jurisdictions and hence the emergence of ISCC EU standards and certification for the value chains surrounding biofuels (and of course, other renewable fuels). Some crop-based feedstocks are allowed, but most crop-based feedstocks are being penalised by the indirect land-use change (ILUC) considerations – which are being reconsidered at the moment. However, there are some groups who are outright against crop-based feedstocks and considering them unsustainable.
Transport & Environment, in particular, have been rather against the whole idea of biofuels and champion a future that is based on hydrogen. They view biofuels as transition fuels that have no place in a net zero world. Consider the letter crafted to push shipping companies away from biofuels for green shipping just because they claim particular crops have been devastating the environment. They continue their assault on palm and soy industries instead of working alongside to find solutions to help these industries boost yield and reduce deforestation. Consider the achievement of the corn industry in the US, driven by the need to produce bioethanol. Won’t it be better if people work together to realise such improvement and increase the supply of alternative fuels in the world rather than screaming doom and gloom about one feedstock or another?
So what kind of doom and gloom are they perpetuating here, you ask? They commissioned a study by Cerulogy showing that “palm and soy oil would likely make up nearly two-thirds of the biodiesel used to power the shipping industry in 2030 as they represent the cheapest fuels to comply.” Again, the concern is food supply being affected as the resources are directed to energy; and also deforestation driven by these crops as feedstock? Isn’t EU Deforestation Regulations (EUDR) meant to look into these areas? Why not just use the tracking and scrutiny to prevent that damage instead of creating blanket bans? Use an lifecycle assessment-driven approach? And focus our efforts on developing clearer standards for lifecycle assessments rather than trying to exclude solutions before they hit the ground?
Well, if you really want to promote hydrogen, you can also consider the environmental damage from the lack of circularity in the solar, wind and battery materials space. The thing about green hydrogen is that it will require intermittent renewable power and these resources do also take up land space. They may not compete with food crops because they use marginal land; or that livestock can continue to coexist amidst solar panels. Wait, food crops could be grown with other parts of their biomass directed to fuels too! And many of these crops can be directed towards animal feed for feedstocks.
I agree that we probably want to think through a bit how the incentives we create can have very bad unintended consequences. But trying so hard to do that on biofuels is not going to undo the problems introduced by decades of subsidising the fossil industries via various policies. Those distorted incentives are plaguing us till this day.
Why is there such a war against biofuels? I don’t get it.
The energy transition is difficult, not least because people cannot agree on which solution to pursue. People are concerned that the world will go down the wrong path and bring us to the brink of a different disaster instead. Yet we are arguing with each other in front of the ticking time bomb of climate change while the problem of huge amounts of carbon emissions continues.
Behind these ‘energy transition experts’, the energy users are beginning to realise they must take charge of their future energy destiny. There is not going to be a straight-forward answer but they will have to figure out what works for them while decarbonising their energy use. And this is why government and policymakers ought to continue ensuring proper pricing of carbon in their system, and defining standards to track and trace the carbon emissions along supply chains.
The basic operating principles are: (1) ensuring emissions data is tracked and that (2) carbon emissions are priced (it can be paid for by anyone in the value chain as they ought to be able to pass on the price until it hits the ultimate direct emitter so that they are incentivised to lower their emissions). These two principles would already do wonders without complexifying things.
The oil majors want us to find energy transition difficult. They want to be the ones to empathise with the huge challenge ahead of us. Because if we are discouraged and slow things down, we can at least buy more fossil fuel in the meantime. Or we can find ways of paying for carbon dioxide removal directly from their fuel emissions or from the air so that it is fine to continue using fossil fuel. Those are more obviously the wrong paths we don’t want to go down. The more natural gas you use right now that comes from the geological reserves, the more empty caverns available for these players to store carbon dioxide in the future.
It’s not easy to cut through the smoke; and we can definitely be more careful with the process by which we arrive at the ideas we have strong convictions about. But if we can keep to those principles and to try and keep solutions simple, we can get to the answer.
How should research funding be assessed? What makes good spending on research? Should it be about patents filed? Or about the number of significant breakthroughs per dollar spent? How about revenues generated from licensing a technology? Or royalties on the patent? Is that really the best way?
What if a drug that could save many lives was discovered? But then it would take much more investment to get the drug tested and so on? What if the research funding itself wasn’t able to get innovation through to the stage where commercialisation would be successful?
The original question was really hard. And one of the things that my research into intellectual property rights regime revealed is that it never was about the patents system or the risk capital that drove innovations. Often, it’s merely the ability to disclose and disseminate information, especially knowledge that would otherwise have been kept a secret, that would have helped push an overall system towards being more innovative.
After all, the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain during a period when their intellectual property rights were terrible, and a patent was mainly used as a form of marketing rather than a way to achieve a monopoly.
So when National Research Foundation or even our A*STAR tries to properly steward taxpayers money by trying to figure out how to spend research funding wisely, they might want to take note that true innovation is the goal of the spending, and not so much the commercialisation value. The need to enforce some kind of ‘commercialisation’ target could very well destroy the very foundation and philosophical underpinnings of research and discovery. The reason government funding is needed is precisely because the market is unable to offer that same kind of funding directed to those activity – so to demand ‘market discipline’ from those activities will bring us back to square one. The underprovision of innovation and hence market failure. Only this time, it is the government who fails.
This ad campaign by Activista, mainly targeting Space X on Earth day – I believe that was in 2021 – is brilliant. It helps to put things into perspective in terms of how we approach our resources and earth.
The message still rings true today and in many ways, it is saying something about the human heart. Our wandering heart often wants to look for something else to sustain ourselves. Something else that may not be designed to sustain us, but we want to make it what our lives depend upon.
Yes, as a Christian, I’m talking about Christ, who provides the salvation we need when we are wandering about seeking salvation through our work, relationships and other forms of addiction in our lives.
Dr Janeway’s article on False Economies highlights some of the philosophical underpinnings of the modern, capitalistic study of economics that drives the system to behave in ways that endangers the entire economy’s long term prospects at times.
There were so many different themes brought out in the article that is worth more investigation and appreciation. The point that Arrow-Debreu’s work points to the fact that our markets in reality would never be efficient is something that we do not embrace enough of – especially in public policy.
The lack of political courage and unwillingness to be accountable to policy decisions drives the notion that we must ‘leave things to the market’. And today, with the world facing the climate challenge, I do not believe that the market is the solution to deal with the challenge. The political will to align incentives, define standards and mobilise efforts is necessary.
The recent Oxfam study about the rich getting richer faster than the poor being uplifted shows that, indeed, we have enough money to deal with the world’s problems. But far too often, it is either in the wrong hands or working towards the wrong goals. Economics assumes the market would direct resources to the ‘right goals’ but this goal-selection process at present is dysfunctional.
