Singapore's sustainability challenges

[SINGAPORE] On the surface, Singapore’s environmental record reads like a textbook success. From its early "City in a Garden" blueprint to the ongoing One Million Trees movement—already boasting over 755,000 plantings—the nation has cultivated a global reputation for sustainable innovation.

Yet behind the glossy press releases and verdant photo ops lies a more complex picture. For every sapling planted, how many mature habitats are cleared to make way for glass and steel? Are young trees truly equivalent to the carbon-absorbing giants they replace? And crucially, are we measuring gains without accounting for losses?

Singapore’s sustainability model rests on five key pillars: City in Nature, Sustainable Living, Energy Reset, Green Economy, and Resilient Future. This article examines the second and third—Sustainable Living and Energy Reset—which are central to delivering the country's 2050 net-zero target.

A cornerstone of these efforts is the carbon tax, introduced in 2019 at S$5 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent. It has since climbed to S$25 and is set to reach S$80 by 2030. On paper, this positions Singapore within Paris Agreement benchmarks. In practice, it’s a delicate balancing act.

Economists globally agree that carbon must be priced between US$40 and US$100 per tonne to effectively drive the transition to renewables. But the associated costs are tangible at home—rising utility bills, increased transport expenses, and broader inflation, all of which disproportionately impact households. There’s also the spectre of carbon leakage, where firms shift operations to jurisdictions with weaker regulations, undermining both climate and economic goals.

Meanwhile, the waste management sector underscores the friction between aspiration and execution. In 2019, the Zero Waste Masterplan outlined bold targets: extend Semakau Landfill’s lifespan beyond 2035, cut per capita waste-to-landfill by 30%, and raise domestic recycling rates to 30% by 2030. Fast forward five years, and progress is underwhelming.

According to the National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore’s overall recycling rate has declined from 62% in 2013 to 52% in 2023. Domestic recycling has fared worse, plummeting to 12%—a far cry from the 30% target. Paper and plastic recovery rates remain under 6%, hampered by contamination and poor source segregation.

Food waste segregation remains inconsistent. Only large commercial entities generating over 300 kg per day are mandated to separate food waste. For households, participation is voluntary and largely impractical. Most food waste is incinerated, not repurposed, with over 80% still burned—squandering both nutrient value and biogas potential. While co-digestion pilots exist, Singapore lacks the large-scale anaerobic facilities necessary for a systemic shift.

E-waste presents a similar story. The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, launched in 2021, lacks robust audits and enforcement. A packaging EPR framework is expected in 2025, but its focus remains on reporting rather than meaningful waste reduction. Commercial sectors are under increasing pressure, yet household contributions remain largely unregulated.

This isn’t just a local governance issue—it’s a global credibility test.

From FY2025, companies listed in Singapore must comply with new climate disclosure rules under the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), particularly IFRS S1 and S2. These standards demand more than intent; they require measurable outcomes, scenario planning, and full transparency.

Singapore’s reliance on Semakau Landfill could complicate compliance. IFRS S1-20 mandates clear metrics and targets, but with recycling goals slipping out of reach, those metrics risk losing credibility. Under IFRS S1-10, material resource risks must be disclosed—a growing concern for industries reliant on landfill infrastructure, such as construction and consumer goods.

IFRS S2-14 requires scenario analysis. At current waste generation rates, companies may soon need to model for a scenario where Semakau reaches capacity before 2035. That future is no longer hypothetical—it is fast approaching.

Further, circular economy disclosures under ISSB rules go beyond vague claims of "recycling." Firms must demonstrate measurable progress in reducing waste generation and promoting reuse or redesign—areas where current infrastructure offers limited support.

The implication is stark: the nearing exhaustion of Semakau is not just an environmental issue. It’s a financial and reputational risk for Singaporean firms operating under international scrutiny.

To maintain its standing, Singapore must bridge the gap between policy ambition and operational reality. That requires bold, structural reforms: mandatory household food waste segregation, enforceable industrial reuse mandates, and a clear alternative to Semakau.

Singapore has already taken some mitigating steps—transitional carbon tax rebates, regulated energy pricing, and green finance programs—but these fall short of offering a robust "just transition" narrative. In climate policy, perception matters. If citizens feel exposed to cost without protection, even the soundest green measures may face resistance.

Other nations offer lessons. Canada redistributes carbon revenues directly to households. Germany invests in green innovation for small businesses. The EU provides industrial transition funds. Singapore’s response must evolve similarly—equitable, strategic, and deeply transparent.

In a rapidly tightening global regulatory environment—marked by mechanisms like IFRS S2 and the EU’s carbon border adjustment—companies can no longer rely on minimal compliance or offshoring to avoid scrutiny. The direction of travel is clear: carbon pricing will continue to rise, but so must safeguards for those most affected.

Without decisive reform, Singapore risks missing its green targets—and more significantly, its reputation for policy precision. Semakau is no longer just a landfill. It has become a symbol of whether the nation’s sustainability narrative can withstand real-world pressures.

To pass the global test, Singapore needs three things: reform in food waste at the household level, firm industrial reuse mandates, and a viable landfill successor.

The clock is ticking.