Coping with Climate Change in Singapore

[I began drafting this post some months ago, maybe even since late 2018 after the IPCC released its report of October 2018 for policy makers. What I got from the report and other commentaries on it, was that Climate Change was coming, all the talk and discussion about ameliorating or moderating the impact of climate change was just wishful and wistful thinking: Climate Change was happening, and NOTHING humans can do would avert it. Hoping SOMETHING we do MIGHT avert or just moderate the impact of climate change was wishful optimism not based on reality.

So, do we just roll over and die? 

Of course not. 

But what would Singapore need to do?

This was what this post was supposed to address. 

What's a China to do? (To intervene or not to intervene in HK?)

China's growth in the last 30 years have been spectacular, unprecedented, and unlikely to be repeated. If Singapore/Singaporeans can be proud of how we grew from Third World to First in one Generation, China can equally be proud that they lifted hundreds of millions (about 600m) of their citizens out of poverty in one generation.

Now they are the second largest economy (in terms of GDP) in the world. Second only to the US, which has about 1/4 of their population. Which means China's per capita GDP is not more than 1/4 of the US (closer to 1/5, IIRC).

AND... their economy is slowing.

A "House" in Singapore?

I'm a fan of the TV series (ended), "House", which is about a genius doctor, Gregory House, who leads a team of diagnosticians to solve medical mysteries - basically patients who present with complicated, unusual, or non-responsive symptoms.

I am reminded of the show because of this news article by a doctor in private practice.

He diagnosed a rare illness, vasculitis in one of his patients.

Which is one of the rare diseases that House's team often come up with.

Future Economy - how to prepare for it?

[15 Feb 2017]

The Committee on the Future Economy released it's report. And the opposition parties immediately savaged it.

I don't blame them. The report was disappointing. Uninspiring. Insipid. Unreadable. And... what did SDP's Chee say?

“Long on rhetoric but woefully lacking in bold and aggressive measures to tackle the serious problems that confront Singapore”.

"Long on rhetoric" - that was what I was thinking too. About Chee's critique.

To be fair, I agree that the recommendations are disappointing. However, what is Chee suggesting or proposing "to tackle the problems that confront Singapore? This:

"He also said the political scene and mass media have to be freed up as the present situation stifles debate, creativity and the development of questioning minds."

And that is what I mean by "long on rhetoric" -- the usual cliched political "talking points" that comes from the opposition, with barely any attempt to hide their political agenda.

Alternative Energy

[Another draft from some time back. This post was began in 2015. And languished in my "Draft" folder for the last few years. I have some new thoughts on it.]

Every now and again, someone somewhere in sunny Singapore will ask, "why are we not using solar power? It's so freaking sunny here all year round!"

And some may even go as far as to ask if we can't harness other clean energy.

Here is the official position:

Climate Change and the battle for your mind

Climate Change.

A.K.A. Global Warming.

Is it REAL?



This first video challenges "conventional, accepted wisdom" that there is scientific consensus that it is Anthopogenic Global Warming (AGW) - see from about 4 minutes into the video. And the "smoking gun" is that about 2/3 of the almost 12,000 scientific papers on climate change had no position on AGW. The "consensus" is based on those papers that had a position on AGW. And in those papers 97% of those papers backed AGW.

But is this science or politics or politically-motivated science?

Singapore's Landfill Island

Pulau Semakau is Singapore's sole landfill. But it takes only... "processed" waste or refuse. And by "processed", I mean incinerated.

Singapore has land constraints. A problem Japan also shares. And not surprisingly, their solution is the one we also settled on.

And also Sweden's "Waste to Energy". Which they consider to be "recycling" because the rubbish is being "recycled" into energy.

[Note that the two links above on Japan and Sweden are from Australian TV and they may have a bias for recycling things... the conventional way. The host of the second link in his story on Sweden's waste management seemed more keen to critique incineration, and to equate the high temperature incineration with simple burning and his interview with Prof Goran Finnveden seemed to be for the purpose of drawing out a critique of "burning plastic". The video's host presented him as someone "who has studied waste-to-energy for many years". You can compare his profile with the claims of his experience. I am not saying he is not qualified or experienced, but I believe (and I may be wrong as I have NO Evidence) that the interview was tightly edited to present a sceptical view of incineration as "recycling" and as a true solution for Australia.]