Singapore’s transition to clean energy faces unique challenges rooted in physical geography and path dependency. Despite a successful history of interventionist central planning, the state cannot fully control its energy future because of structural limitations. Singapore’s geography and lack of natural resources severely restrict domestic energy production, and solar expansion under the Singapore Green Plan is projected to meet only ~3% of local electricity demand. As a result, Singapore must continue to rely heavily on energy imports, increasing exposure to geopolitical and economic shocks. At the same time, Singapore’s electricity generation remains largely dependent on natural gas, creating costly infrastructure investment challenges for integrating renewables. The transition therefore requires careful trade-offs between reliability, affordability, and sustainability. The state, accustomed to wielding control, must balance these priorities whilst navigating geopolitical vulnerabilities that are inherent in its energy supply.

This paper evaluates Fortescue’s Real Zero plan, which aims to eliminate Scope 1 and 2 emissions from its Australian iron ore operations by 2030 without using carbon offsets. Supported by a favourable domestic policy environment and strong global investment in clean energy, the plan is ambitious but achievable. It is also symbolically important as a major shift for one of the world’s largest iron ore producers. However, Real Zero addresses only ~1% of Fortescue’s total emissions, as ~99% arise downstream in steelmaking and lie/fall outside the company’s direct control. This raises questions about the plan’s broader climate impact and its possible reputational risks. The analysis highlights both the strengths and limitations of Fortescue’s strategy, concluding that long-term effectiveness depends on economy-wide decarbonisation efforts driven by activism and stakeholder engagement.

Carbon markets seem to be an innovative reaction to the climate crisis. However, from the beginning, there was a focus on economic development and market protection. In its current iteration, carbon trading is a mere commodification of nature. This has blocked the necessary pathways of development away from fossil fuels and could also lead to ecological collapse once nature is subsumed into a market logic. The stage for this theatre is a political landscape that can aptly be described as post-political. Scientific knowledge legitimises the expert management of a technocracy, whilst there is an implicit silencing of debates of more fundamental ideas. Carbon markets are ultimately problematic because of their existence within a politico-economic framework that refuses to question its own foundations or inner-workings.

This paper examines the enduring ‘balance of nature’ concept, arguing that it persists in contemporary ecology because of unexamined philosophical assumptions rather than empirical support. Beginning with its roots in ancient Aristotelian philosophy and tracing its survival through the Darwinian revolution, my analysis shows how the Lotka–Volterra model assumes an equilibrium ideal. I argue that this assumption should be reframed as a testable scientific hypothesis rather than treated as background truth. Conservation priorities could then shift. Instead of aiming to maintain an imagined equilibrium, efforts can focus more on reducing human-driven ecological disturbance. The paper concludes by proposing a revised framing for ecology and conservation efforts, one that recognises the central role of anthropogenic impacts.