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.

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!

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.

What is a tonne of carbon

emissions worth?

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?

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...

www.whitehouse.gov

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

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.

Good start!

But need to ratchet up ambition

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why do we need a

global carbon price?

In case we forget why we need a carbon price...here's a quick chart rem