# data[].attributes.body
We can apply politics of knowledge and economic power into our understanding of carbon markets in SG. Questions such as who sets the limit and the price, how the price and limit were obtained, and who is in-charge of Singapore's carbon market should be asked considered when trying to understand the market better!

# data[].attributes.body
Carbon markets needs to be improved because offsets have relied heavily on private market functions. Through a political ecology lens, it allows us to comprehend how can we realistically utilise carbon market to attain certain forms of development, as well as address the limitations of carbon market mechanisms in governing emissions reductions more generally. We are running out of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale, thus it is critical for us to rethink the effectiveness of carbon markets.

# data[].attributes.body
I think carbon markets can be paired with other climate mitigation alternatives (like green buildings etc) bc afterall direct carbon emission is not the full picture? In a sense that aside from direct emissions (like fossil fuels etc) there are also other ways that carbon is being emitted into the environment and the carbon market is overly focused on the emissions, taking away the attention from the smaller contributors (that may amount to significant levels when combined?)

# data[].attributes.headline
Tracing where carbon credits are being generated, and how they are presented /framed 

# data[].attributes.subject
Tracing where carbon credits are being generated, and how they are presented /framed 

# data[].attributes.body
Singapore as a knowledge economy and trading hub might put it in the spotlight of carbon markets, especially since the Singapore based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) will act as a convener and connector for carbon trade. I think this puts Singapore in a situation where it can regulate how carbon markets are carried out and materialise within its millions of member businesses. Singapore will need to find a way to negotiate our position given its still heavy reliance on petroleum industries. It will need to decide what forms of knowledge are prioritised, and be careful that there are no conflicts of interest in the determination of the specifics of carbon markets, especially so because of its reach to businesses in other countries.

# data[].attributes.body
A political ecology lens can be used to examine the politics of knowledge of carbon markets in Singapore, where more powerful scientific experts (both in government agencies and consultants) determine the rules of carbon trading and what constitutes carbon markets, carbon taxes etc.

# data[].attributes.body
In Singapore, most of the carbon emissions come from the export/import oriented economy. As we've learnt before, it is a political issue to assign responsibility for these emissions from transport, as its difficult to justify why departure or arrival countries bear the blunt for carbon emissions. In that light, carbon markets in Singapore may be difficult to implement before recaching a consensus on this issue.

# data[].attributes.body
My understanding of carbon markets that it is based on the principle of exchange, that so long as emitting parties can afford it, they can emit to their desires, which undoubtedly creates a lot of loopholes. Furthermore it only accounts for emissions (end-of-process), where there are other facets contributing to climate change, so perhaps carbon markets can be complemented with crediting other start-of-process changes such as the designing phase of a project or efficient processes instead of focusing on paying for "emissions already made".

# data[].attributes.body
I think carbon markets should be replaced because it created a whole new market that is being exploited. This is especially so if more projects are built by foreigners just to get CER credits for trading (demand driving more production). Without CDM in place, there may be less projects done, which may actually reduce emissions. If that is the case, tackling consumption would then be a viable option to mitigate climate change i.e. driving down demand to drive down supplies.

# data[].attributes.body
I think we can apply the politics of economic power in examining the carbon markets here in Singapore. One instance is the imposition of carbon tax to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions, as part of being in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement. The taxes are imposed on sectors whose annual greenhouse gas emission is greater than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Importantly, we can consider which businesses have more economic means and power to transit to low-carbon operations to not have to pay that much carbon taxes. The size and type of industry matters because it affects the cost of transition to cleaner tech or renewable energy. The SG government is a huge player in this as well as it has legitimate authority and financial power to utilize the tax revenue to encourage business investments and innovations in more energy efficient technology and equipment via financing programs and schemes.

# data[].attributes.body
In terms of CDM and carbon trading, the gov adopts a very capitalistic stance. They see these as “green growth opportunities” (fr NCCS website) and actively sells us as a prime location for companies that want to develop projects in the region especially in China and India. Politics of environmental change can definitely be applied here because SG gains by having these investors pay us for expertise, planning, consultation, legal services etc. while actual projects occur somewhere else in the region. For the investors, they also get to reap benefits from the CERs collected through their projects. However, any new project is still a project that adds on to emissions. Reality is we take the cash while the locals in other countries bite the dust.

# data[].attributes.body
For a viable climate solution, I think carbon markets should be replaced by other stronger climate mitigation activites. To me, it feels like carbon markets are created to appeal to the interests of business owners who wish to maintain the status quo. Carbon markets for example through CDM seem like a greenwash of cleaner business dealings. At the end of the day, business owners' interests are still being prioritized. Instead for a more viable climate solution, there can be stricter regulation and enforcement of environmental laws to ensure that emissions can be reduced. Another way is to give more support to research to find better climate mitigation solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
Accounting for how our industries generate large volumes of byproducts and emissions elsewhere. This means that the valuation of carbon market cannot just look at the direct emissions but the indirect portion too.

# data[].attributes.body
I think carbon market need to be replaced as it seems to be transferring the emission to the other places but not really reducing the emission. Besides, the need for carbon credits might reduce because country or company are shifting to green energy. Maybe subsidy or law might be more efficient.

# data[].attributes.headline
Inclusion of carbon capture (plants) within the carbon market system (Kenneth Choo)

# data[].attributes.subject
Inclusion of carbon capture (plants) within the carbon market system (Kenneth Choo)

# data[].attributes.body
For carbon markets to work, there must be a system where carbon capture plants and natural sinks such as developing forests must be allowed to sell carbon credits to polluters so that the carbon credits can be used to further develop carbon capture plants while carbon emitters would need to pay to emit carbon. This would then turn carbon markets into a carbon-neutral system where a balance between carbon sequestation and carbon emissions is achieved.

# data[].attributes.body
the government has led the creation of carbon markets in Singapore, whereby the eligibility of companies is predicated on their carbon emissions. In this case, I think we can apply the politics of  economic power, given our position as being heavily trade dependent, carbon tax prices are thus reliant on the willingness of polluters to pay for the carbon tax (eg. if it is priced too high --> companies may move elsewhere), this has resulted in Singapore adopting a lower carbon tax (compared to that recommended by the WB) which is set to increase over subsequent years in order to make such a policy palatable to companies

# data[].attributes.body
With Singapore being actively involved in the petroleum industry it would be important to discuss how the politics of economy is involved in carbon markets. Carbon tax is something that was implemented in 2019 and I wonder how extensive this pricing is affected by such companies. In addition, how to balance such carbon tax with the interest of attracting businesses to set-up in Singapore.

Carbon tax: https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/climate-change-energy-efficiency/climate-change/carbon-tax

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps carbon markets can improved with a greater foc

# data[].attributes.body
maybe carbon markets should be replaced as they are focusing on those 'producing' carbon and does not address the excessive consumption norm within our society.

# data[].attributes.body
I think carbon markets can be improved through perhaps including local-level efforts and including them in conversations on climate mitigation. Consumers do play a huge part in climate change. As we humans are facilitating the market for carbon emissions and hence should be equally involved in mitigating our emissions. Although it might seem local-level efforts are minute compared to global policies, i see the potential of knowledges from local communities.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the logic of helping 'less' developed countries to afford renewable energy/climate mitigation projects through the carbon market is a worthy one to preserve, but just warped by the need for capitalistic accumulation. Hence, I think carbon markets can be replaced with initiatives that focus on collaboration projects- working together with these countries for climate mitigation projects. Even there is a need to lend funds, rather than using it as a way to offset pollution within developed countries, perhaps the loan could be repaid through free research access/labour (although we must be careful not to end up like the conservation project previously!)

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps the focus of climate mitigation solutions should be shifted from carbon markets towards the future of zero carbon emissions in infrastructure, manufacturing etc, or improving CCS technology, esp since carbon market doesnt really seem to be effective in regulating carbon emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
I think carbon markets in general does not tackle the issue on the demand end of the market. Carbon markets target producers as the main polluters rather than aim to reduce consumption so as to reduce the need to pollute in the first place. Hence, carbon markets should work in tandem with demand side policies that tackle carbon consumption.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that besides putting in place regulations within the carbon market to avoid a surplus of carbon credits which then financially disincentives companies from investing in such projects overseas,   less-developed nations should also ensure that their own local communities stand to benefit from such projects. This is because they are often already marginalised to begin with, and taking up CDM or REDD projects will result in further marginalisation of these people, therefore contributing to more global inequality. They can do so by ensuring that locals and communities are able to partake in the politics of knowledge by making it a mandatory requirement in CDM/REDD projects and that measures are put in place to ensure that they will actually be taken into consideration. - Liyana

# data[].attributes.body
I find it weird that the carbon market crashed because of a surplus of credits circulating in the global carbon market. I see it as a problem of capitalism being unable to keep up with the time scale that climate change mitigation operates on. So perhaps a way to improve carbon market is to include considerations for the long-term characteristic of climate mitigation. Market mechanisms are very fickle compared to climate changes, so stabilising the market according to the time scale that climate change mitigation operates can ensure that carbon markets are healthy enough to support climate mitigation.

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, I think that the carbon market is not viable in truly mitigating climate change as it focuses on lowering costs of emissions instead of truly cutting down on emissions. Perhaps, those who are in position of market power to actually purchase credits should actually invest more in technology advancements of cleaner energy, better research in viability of net-carbon buildings etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps carbon markets can improved with a greater focus on biodiversity offsets. Although it is difficult to index biodiversity it is unique to every region, I think that considering a more wholistic approach to reducing CO2 than simplistic approaches like plating trees might be more helpful. As such, it seems impossible to dismantle the deeply rooted capitalist structures which underscore carbon markets and an improvement might be more viable than replacement.  (Anu)

# data[].attributes.body
A political ecology lens can help promote an inter-scalar perspective of Singapore's role in the global carbon market. Many other comments have shown that Singapore positions itself as a global hub, or intermediary, for carbon trading. By extension, Singapore is complicit in the environmental justice arising from carbon market initiatives. So an inter-scalar perspective can reveal how Singapore, though not the site of carbon initiatives like REDD+, is still not removed from the global carbon market and its problems

# data[].attributes.body
The politics of knowledge lens can be applied to the carbon market in Singapore. According to the NEA, the reporting of emissions and carbon tax payment is a voluntary act where companies self identify themselves as either a reportable or taxable facility. This allows companies to self-construct their knowledge on their carbon emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
The politics of knowledge is shown through Singapore's carbon tax, as it allows facilities to deregister themselves from the taxation system if they fall below certain "thresholds". However, who determines these thresholds and how? Also, there is also the question of what happens in the long-term, as companies may choose short-term solutions to bring down their emissions, but not sustain them, or ironically, just displace their emissions to do escape the tax. Therefore, more clarity needs to be gleaned with regards to the methods which companies use to lower their emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
Since carbon markets are planned to place a value on carbon and that would attract businesses to be involved in those projects, first would be to improve carbon market design.

I believe there should be restrictions on the types of projects planned under CDM. The waste market in Argentina worsened the quality of living for local communities who were exploited by the local government since they would receive a percentage of CER sales. We have seen that the waste market is oftentimes not beneficial to the country that the waste is dumped on (e.g. China) so perhaps there should be more scrutiny on what truly counts as a CDM project. Perhaps another way would be to ensure that local communities are involved and will receive monetary compensation in these projects too.

However, as mentioned in lecture there is a surplus in such carbon market projects. Perhaps there should be something to make carbon markets based on a long term commitment? IDK bonds?? Rather than just short term buy/sell system that is observed in the current markets. Or perhaps simply to somehow provide compensation

# data[].attributes.body
As Lavelle mentioned in her article: Carbon markets started as a way to offer polluters more flexibility as they try to meet national emissions reduction targets. The carbon markets should be viewed as a transitionary platform but not a long term solution. The current functioning of the carbon markets have shown how it is susceptible to leveraged by powerful players from its loopholes. Perhaps, companies participating in the carbon markets should be held accountable to provide a detailed plan to transit away from buying carbon credits by implementing concrete mitigation efforts.

# data[].attributes.body
(e.g. the challenge of carbon commensurability).
I think carbon markets can be improved through rethinking politics of knowledge and power. As these climate mitigation policies are implemented on a global scale, perhaps there should be more interference and conversations about climate mitigation on the local levels, as consumers do play a huge part in climate change as well. We humans are facilitating the market for carbon emissions and hence should be equally involved in mitigating our emissions. In comparison to global efforts and policies, it might seem that local-level efforts are small. But my opinion is that there is value in local knowledges and ways to mitigate climate change 

# data[].attributes.body
I think from a political ecology perspective, the politics of knowledge is imperative in our understanding of carbon markets in Singapore. To include the people who understand the carbon cycle as their expertise will be key in understanding the true implications of carbon. I just think that the very first and important step in tackling the climate issues is to understand the causes of climate change holistically. Hence, to implement and understand the framework, and the production of knowledge, to tackle climate change issues is important which is probably how we should apply in understanding the carbon market in SG.

# data[].attributes.body
Apart from better regulation to prevent over supply of credits. The allocation of credits to emission reduction projects could be better regulated to ensure additionality

# data[].attributes.body
I think carbon markets are a economic-based solution that do not adequately consider other forms of nature valuation. By basing it on notions of profit and loss, the system itself is broken as project developers become overly focussed on maximising their gains, which undermines the environmental aims of such markets. Hence, perhaps more consideration should be given to environmental and social values at the local scale, instead of just linking carbon to a global-good, to help achieve more just outcomes.

Moreover, carbon development projects largely focus on the end-goal, but what goes into the development of such projects? Greater thought should be put into the origin and use of materials (eg. infrastructure for clean energy etc) sourced for CDM projects.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that carbon markets fail to capture the complexity of climate change, while I understand the economic basis behind "paying to pollute", I think that within such a capitalistic context, this can instead be seen as a way to enable polluters to continue polluting as long as they are able to pay for the costs, which further disadvantages smaller economies/companies. Furthermore, the collapses in the carbon market has shown that economic means are unable to capture the urgency and seriousness of climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
I think carbon markets are not sustainable because it perpetually 'prices' and commoditises carbon, and ultimately feeds the narrative that green capitalism (through carbon trading etc.) is a viable environmental solution. I think more attention needs to be placed on addressing social, cultural, economic inequalities as part of mitigating climate change (mentioned in my forum post).

# data[].attributes.body
I think that carbon markets can still be improved but not replace climate mitigation alternatives. This is because carbon markets do not really cut down emissions. It only serves to place quota on countries. In addition, emissions trading allows richer countries to buy more unused carbon allowance. This means that there is little chance of carbon reduction and countries only need to pay a sum of money to increase their carbon emission quota.

# data[].attributes.body
Instead of granting carbon credits to companies/countries that are emitting excessive amounts of GHG, I think a better way would be to tax them instead. By increasing the prices of carbon and reducing the flexibility mechanism established by the kyoto protocol, it should push emitters to be more conservative in their emissions. If not, maybe moving towards carbon emission subsidies could be more impactful and  sustainable which allows for existing projects to change their polluting ways and reduce their emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
Singapore employs a carbon tax. It regulates any industrial facility that emits direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions equal to or above 2,000 tCO2e annually to register as a reportable facility and to submit an Emissions Report annually while those that emits direct GHG emissions equal to or above 25,000 tCO2e annually will have to pay the carbon tax ($5 per tonne from 2019 to 2023 and then $10-$15 by 2030). It is important to question how is the level of carbon emissions and the monetary amount set as a tax quantified?