Tale of two climate fronts: part I
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A 15km stretch of crisp white beach is one of the key battlegrounds in Singapore's campaign to defend its hard-won territory against rising sea levels linked to climate change.
Stone breakwaters are being enlarged on the low-lying island state's man-made east coast and their heights raised. Barges carrying imported sand top up the beach, which is regularly breached by high tides.
Singapore, the world's second most densely populated country after Monaco, covers 715 square km (276 sq miles). It has already reclaimed large areas to expand its economy and population – boosting its land area by more than 20 per cent since 1960.
But the new land is now the frontline in a long-term battle against the sea.
Every square metre is precious in Singapore.
One of the world's wealthiest nations in per-capita terms, it is also among the most vulnerable to climate change that is heating up the planet, changing weather patterns and causing seas to rise as the oceans warm and glaciers and icecaps melt.
Late last year, the government decided the height of all new reclamations must be 2.25 metres (7.5 feet) above the highest recorded tide level – a rise of a metre over the previous mandated minimum height.
The additional buffer was costly but necessary, Environment Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told Reuters in a recent interview.
"You are buying insurance for the future," he said during a visit to a large flood control barrier that separates the sea from a reservoir in the central business area.
The decision underscores the government's renowned long-term planning and the dilemma the country faces in fighting climate change while still trying to grow. It also highlights the problem facing other low-lying island states and coastal cities and the need to prepare.
A major climate change review for the Chinese government last week said China's efforts to protect vulnerable coastal areas with embankments were inadequate. It said in the 30 years up to 2009, the sea level off Shanghai rose 11.5 centimetres (4.5 inches); in the next 30 years, it will probably rise another 10 to 15 centimetres.
POCKET POWERHOUSE
Since it was created by the British as a trading port in the early 19th century, Singapore has turned to the sea to expand and has become one of the world's fastest-growing countries in terms of new land area. More land is being regularly reclaimed.
In this pocket powerhouse, there is much to protect. Singapore's recipe for success is to be a city of superlatives to keep ahead of competitors. It is a major Asian centre for finance, shipping, trading, manufacturing, even gambling, with giant casinos as glitzy as those in Las Vegas or Macau.
Much of the city centre is on reclaimed land, including an expanding financial district, a new terminal for ocean liners and a $3.2 billion underground expressway, part of which runs under the sea.
The industrial west has one of Asia's largest petrochemical complexes, much of it on reclaimed islands.
The wealth generated from these sectors has created a $255 billion economy. Per-capita GDP stands on a par with the United States at nearly $50,000, though opposition politicians complain about growing wealth gaps within the island's society.
The UN climate panel says sea levels could rise between 18 and 59 centimetres (7 to 24 inches) this century and more if parts of Antarctica and Greenland melt faster. Some scientists say the rise is more likely to be in a range of 1 to 2 metres.
Singapore could cope with a rise of 50cm to 1m, coastal scientist Teh Tiong Sa told Reuters during a tour of the East Coast Park, the city's main recreation area.
"But a rise of two metres would turn Singapore into an island fortress," said Teh, a retired teacher from Singapore's National Institute for Education. That would mean constructing more and higher walls to protect against the sea.
Indeed, between 70 and 80 per cent of Singapore already has some form of coastal protection, the government says.
The dilemma Singapore faces is mirrored by other coastal cities, such as Mumbai, Hong Kong, Bangkok and New York, though not all have Singapore's financial muscle.
The threat underscores the limits on Singapore's physical growth in terms of further reclamation, costs and managing long-term growth of its population, which has risen from 3 million in 1990 to nearly 5.2 million in 2011.
Topping up reclamation levels "does not fundamentally change the way we approach reclamation – while we reclaim to meet our development needs, we are cognisant that there is a physical limit to how much more land we can reclaim," a spokesman for the National Climate Change Secretariat told Reuters.
To make more efficient use of existing land, a government agency floated the idea this month of building a science city 30 stories underground.
WINDS OF CHANGE
Climate change presents a host of other challenges.
More intense rainfall has caused embarrassing floods in the premier Orchard Road shopping area.
And the government says average daily temperature in tropical Singapore could increase by 2.7 to 4.2 degrees Celsius from the current average of 26.8 deg C by 2100, which could raise energy use for cooling.
Here lies another dilemma. The country is already one of the most energy intensive in Asia to power its industries and fiercely airconditioned malls and glass office towers – a paradox in a country at such risk from climate change.
The government has focused on energy efficiency, such as strict building codes and appliance labelling to curb the growth of planet-warming carbon emissions and has steadily switched its power stations to burn gas instead of fuel oil.
It has also invested heavily in slick subway lines and promoted investment and research in the clean-tech sector.
But electricity demand is still set to grow. Consumption doubled between 1995 and 2010, government figures show, and long-term reliance on fossil fuels for energy is unlikely to change, given limited space for green energy such as solar.
Balakrishnan said the government is keen to do its part in any global fight against climate change and that pushing for greater energy efficiency made sense anyway in a country with virtually no natural resources.
But there was a limit to how fast it would move, opening the way for criticism from some countries that Singapore was hiding behind its developing country status under the United Nations, which obliges it to take only voluntary steps to curb emissions.
"What we want is a level playing field and unilateral moves are not feasible, not possible, for a small, tiny island state that actually is not going to make a real difference at a global level to greenhouse gases," Balakrishnan said.
Singapore's emissions, though, are forecast to keep growing, having roughly doubled since 1990. The government is looking at putting a price on carbon emissions and perhaps setting up an emissions trading market.
"We're already half way there in the sense we are already pricing everything according to the market," said Tilak Doshi, head of energy economics at the Energy Studies Institute in Singapore.
He pointed to Singapore being the world's largest bunkering port.
"Bunkering is huge in terms of carbon emissions and Singapore can play a key role in how to handle global shipping emissions," he said. "How to handle bunker fuels – do we tax it, do we cap-and-trade it, do we get bunkering companies to start trading emissions certificates?"
The government has a number of levers to adjust energy policies over time. Against rising sea levels, it is a campaign in progress to tame the tides.
In some cases, it might be better to let the sea reclaim the land in a managed retreat, said Teh, the coastal scientist.
"It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Some areas you keep, others you let go." For land-limited Singapore, that could prove a tough decision to make.
(Editing by Ron Popeski and Sanjeev Miglani)
Comments on this article
You really create it seem so
You really create it seem so efficient with your display but I discover this subject to be really something which I think I would never comprehend. It seems too complex and very wide for me.schnell abnehmen
A good example of content
A good example of content presentation. A piece of information from you every now and then is really great. Everything was so well coordinated and looked so aesthetically pleasing to the eye. small removals to france
It is pleasing to look you
It is pleasing to look you express from the heart and your clarity on this significant content can be easily looked. Remarkable post and will look forward to your future update.sell oil and gas
The quality of information in
The quality of information in here is magnificent, like you basically wrote the book on the subject. Your site is fantastic for anyone who wants to understand this subject more. sbobet
Really like your blog content
Really like your blog content the way you put up the things…I’ve read the topic with great interest and definitely will stick your blog routinely for other great posts.hemden
I am going through this post
It is a great motivating review.I'm very considerably satisfied with the excellent work.You place definitely useful information. Keep it up. Keep running a blog. Trying to analyzing your following post. Cystic Acne
Brief information of the idea
Brief information of the idea in the articles. I came across your site and I discovered it is as one of the best no cost options available ! Well done ! Keep on this excellent.maqui berry
I am very enjoyed for this
I am very enjoyed for this side. Its a nice topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you.marlboro lights
You should be conscious of
You should be conscious of the actuality of the issue that there is indeed an excellent website. It does exactly what it designs out to do. Increase to analysis many more information.free jailbroken iPhone apps
You really create it seem so
You really create it seem so efficient with your display but I discover this subject to be really something which I think I would never comprehend. It seems too complex and very wide for me.convert itunes m4v to mp4
This is such an awesome
This is such an awesome useful source that you are offering and you give it away for no cost. I really like seeing internet sites that understand the value of offering a quality useful source for no cost.painters and decorators
I was looking for these
I was looking for these things and here I found it. I am doing a development and this information is very constructive me. Some things in here I have not thought about before. hcg wholesale
Reuters
Reuters always have the best info, great article.
James
watch free movies online
basic textbook science
Earth is warmed by absorbtion of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth's temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a 'black body' radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth's spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K.
Earth's surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave 'thermal' (microwave) radiation increases. Observing earth's spectrum from space has big absorbtion bands due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Prominent among these is carbon dioxide (CO2).
Greenhouse gases such as H2O and CO2 absorb, then re-emit, some longwave wavelengths. About half of the re-emitted radiation is observed to be diverted back down toward the surface. this discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.
Heat thus accumulates at the surface, ~85% of which warms oceans, accelerating ice melting.
Timothy Northcott, IPCC and Sea Levels
Timothy Northcott seems underwhelmed that IPCC 2007 sea level projections are for a rise between 18 and 59 cm this century.
Could someone explain to Timothy that IPCC 2007 projections were based ONLY on thermal expansion of oceans. This is because, as of 2006, polar ice melt hadn't been proceeding long enough for anyone to make any projections.
The Good News for Timothy is that by next IPCC Assessment (~2013), there'll be enough observations of ice melt for ice melt to be incorporated in projections of sea level rise. This means projected sea level rise range of 1-2 metres by 2100 is reasonable ... and ~6 metres by 2200 if atmospheric CO2 stays as high as at present for that time.
summary of thousands of papers
Timothy,
The reference you cite summarises thousands of scientists efforts and the summary says exactly what I said the science has shown ie that as you increase CO2 in the atmosphere so there is a direct effect on temperature (substantial increase) .
I say again, that you claim it isn't settled, yet you cite a review of thousands of scientists work which comes to exactly the reverse conclusion (ie that CO2 forcing temperature rise is firmly established).
Please stop seeking to confuse people who haven't read the literature by claiming the Royal Society report doesn't demonstrate that CO2 causes global warming...
By making false claims, you continue to use dishonest tactics to try to lull people into a false sense of security.
Thousands of papers....
yet you cannot cite a single one ! Maybe you should read the Royal Societies reveiw on the science:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/
peer reviewed data on CO2 and global warming
Timothy,
Standard tactic to deny the thousands of reports which clearly show that the increased CO2 over the last 50 years accounts for the warming seen. This is just basic textbook science: add CO2 get warming. This is not in any doubt amongst scientists all the way back to Arrhenius in the 19th century.
The standard denial tactic is to address temperature changes in the distant past and not to acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
In recent times we've been stoking the fires of warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This is not controversial except to deniers who won't face facts.
If something else is causing the warming, where did the warming go that is CO2 induced??
Peer reviewed evidence
Keith Williams:
Please provide a link to a single peer reviewed paper that proves that CO2 is the cause of recent global warming.
denying climate change
Timothy,
more denialist propaganda, presenting falsehoods as facts. Please stop saying that CO2 isn't the cause of recent global warming. The data is very clear as huge amounts of documentation spells out. You don't have the data to back up your assertions.
As for the Maldives saying one thing and doing the opposite, what is different to Australian politicians espousing a low carbon economy while they dramatically wind up fossil fuel exploitation (coal, gas).
Just proves that for the moment the fossil fuel lobby, with help of obfuscators and deniers, is winning the battle.
Unfortunately the claims of the deniers isn't holding up the global warming.
abnormal
Reg Howes:
The temperature and sea levels are rising, however, the science isn't settled that CO2 is the driver. Get used to the idea that it will continue and don't believe for a second that by taxing CO2 you will change the climate. People need to get used to the idea that we will need to adapt to the change, especially when the next ice age comes around !
Do some reading Timothy Northcott
Please don't comment on articles if you have no knowledge of the topic Timothy. There is a plethora of articles detailing the serious impacts of relatively small sea level rises on coastal aquifers , increased areas affected by storm surges and coastal erosion. “wow” indeed.
It seems those who argue for inaction on climate change either try to deny that it is happening ( eg there is no evidence of an abnormal temperature rises), or where the evidence is incontrovertible (documented rises in sea levels) attempt to dissmiss the consequences as trivial.
Totally mindless responses.
Sea Levels
The UN climate panel says sea levels could rise between 18 and 59 centimetres this century (Wow) and some scientists say the rise is more likely to be in a range of 1 to 2 metres (then again some - like Tim Flannery - even speculate a 25 metre rise).
The Maldives (who usually sream loudly about AGW) obviously aren't that worried about rising sea levels as they are in the process of building 11 new airports - at sea level !
http://www.maldivestourismupdate.com/2009/07/11-new-airports-to-be-constructed-in.html
Dilemma
Thanks for a thought-provoking article. Too small to have any real impact on climate change, yet, in its own way, Singapore is right in the firing line. Imagine trying to sell a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme in such an environment!
Instead, they will use their wealth to mitigate the effects. Quite right.
I wonder if any of the wealthier nations will feel constrained to help the less well-off?
Will Australia rise to the challenge if Kiribati disappears and its population is forced to move? Or will we take the line that we are too small to have caused the problem, so we are under no obligation to act?
Some of us think it would have been better to avoid the problem.