Did you know that Singapore is warming two times faster than the rest of the world?
According to Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS), Singapore is warming at 0.25 degree Celsius per decade, which is twice as fast compared to the average global temperature increase at 0.12 degree Celsius. (Cheng, 2016)
I was astonished when I came across this statistic because it made me realise that Singapore may not be as safe from natural calamities as I thought! For the longest time, I had the impression that Singapore was a very safe country because it is geographically blessed.
Nonetheless, Singapore still faces natural hydrological hazards such as flooding. With the government’s exceptional infrastructure, we tend to forget that Singapore is a low-lying country vulnerable to hydrological hazards. According to Tortajada and Biswas (last accessed 2 October 2019), “flood-prone areas in Singapore decreased from 317800 ha in 1978 to 29 ha today”. Despite this, floods still occur occasionally when torrential rain falls for a longer time.
This piqued my interest, and I decided to find out if Singaporeans have been too ignorant of the impacts climate change might have in Singapore. With that thought, I surveyed 53 people on their perceptions of the impacts of climate change in Singapore. The ages of my participants varied between 13 to over 65 years old, so I was able to get a reasonably reliable view of what general Singaporeans’ think.
The views on whether participants felt that Singapore was safe from natural disasters or not were comparatively similar with 30 respondents feeling that Singapore could come under threat into the next 80 years to 23 respondents feeling that Singapore is safe for the next 80 years. Interestingly, a majority of the younger generation (12-24 years old) answered: “Yes, safe for at least the next 80 years.” and many of them explained that “It has never occurred to [them] that Singapore would experience natural hazards.” It was clear that these people felt the same way I did; that Singapore was safe because it is geographically blessed.
Even the Singapore government has already taken steps toward mitigating the effects of climate change. During Singapore’s National Day Rally Speech earlier this year, PM Lee announced that the government had devoted $100 billion to protect against rising sea levels due to climate change. However, these are all merely adaptations and not solutions. This article by Razzouk (2019) highlighted that with Singapore’s large sovereign wealth funds, it should “exit investments in non-Singaporean oil, gas and coal companies” instead to achieve a better result as it tackles the problem at its roots.
In conclusion, seeing as how Singapore is especially at risk to the impacts of climate change, it is ironic and self-destructive to continue to invest in and proliferate fossil fuels. For the younger generation in Singapore that will live through the effects of climate change 80 years down the road, it may seem likely that Singapore will remain safe, but if governments choose to continue relying upon fossil fuels, this might not be the case.
References:
- (Cheng, 2016). “S’pore temperatures rising at double the global average”. Retrieved from: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-growing-warmer-twice-global-average
- (CNA, last accessed 2 October 2019). “Flash floods reported in parts of Singapore after heavy rain”. Retrieved from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/flash-floods-heavy-rain-singapore-weather-11591722
- (Tortajada and Biswas, last accessed 2 October 2019). “Commentary: Have Singaporeans been mollycoddled on climate change?”. Retrieved from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/commentary-have-singaporeans-been-mollycoddled-on-climate-change-11944442
- [Images]. Retrieved from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/flash-floods-heavy-rain-singapore-weather-11591722
- (Razzouk, last accessed 2 October 2019). “Green steps that Singapore should take urgently”. Retrieved from: https://admin.todayonline.com/commentary/how-singapore-can-help-prevent-climate-change-instead-spending-s100-billion-adapting-it
- [Image]. Retrieved from: https://cdn.techinasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/singapore-marina-bay-sands-light-lines.jpg
Hi Letitia,
I agree with you that for the sake of long-term sustainability, the Singapore government should consider divesting from “non-Singaporean oil, gas and coal companies”. However, given the significant contributions of Singapore’s oil and gas industry to its economy, as well as the fact that most forms of renewable energy (besides solar) have limited viability in Singapore, some would disagree with our sentiments (and rather vociferously I might add). What would you say to convince detractors to come around to your point of view?
Cheers,
Elliott
Hey Elliott!
Firstly, we can quote the IPCC and explain to detractors that based on the work of thousands of scientists, there are no scenarios in which we can keep using fossil fuels and keep the world from an environmental catastrophe. We can also cite how arctic ice has melted so much that it has even begun to threaten coastal cities like ours. This point could be given additional credibility by the governments’ recent financial commitments towards adapting our city to rising sea levels.
Besides this, Singapore could invest in offshore renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. For instance, building undersea power lines to obtain renewable energy from Australia could provide a cleaner, cost-effective source of energy. You can read more about it here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/australian-solar-power-singapore/
Unequivocally, it will require a lot of courage to divest from fossil fuel infrastructures given its economic benefits and proven track record. One consolation is that with Singapore’s large sovereign wealth funds, we should be more than able to handle the short term economic impacts of divesting from fossil fuels.
Anyway, stay tuned for my next post, which I’ll be sharing about an American clothing company which has turned out highly successful despite and perhaps even as a consequence of its genuine commitment to green business practices.
Cheers,
Letitia
Hi Letitia,
Thanks so much for your ongoing effort to do primary research ! Huge kudos.
If I may though, here are some aspects you might think a bit more about…
1) SG has an avg of > 10 flash floods a year, and frequency is increasing. But it’s difficult to attribute this conclusively to climate change. A big part of it is high impervious surface area, which means runoff has nowhere to go. And the more we develop forested area, the worse the problem gets.
2) Your Q on what ppl think about our vulnerability… to be fair, SG is not subject to seismic events. And I’m not sure about the vulnerability to forest fires – the reality is that for a long time, we can probably buy our way out of many of the worst effects of climate change. My pt is : vulnerability to any risk is about more than just likelihood and severity – it’s also ability to mitigate its effects. So when you ask a Q like this (especially with all these examples), respondents can say (correctly) that we aren’t vulnerable depending how they read the Q.
3) Minor pt (understandable mistake). Many students seem to arbitrarily divide ppl up into age grps in ways that aren’t intuitive, but emphasise even size of increments instead. So, you lumped together everyone aged 12 to 24. But there’s a huge difference in cognition between a pre-teen and an adult.
Just some constructive criticism.
jc
Hi Dr Coleman,
Thank you for pointing out the details that I overlooked in my survey. These will really help me when I conduct primary research in the future. 🙂
– Letitia