Singapore Peak Oil

To sustain growth and vitality in our economy, we need a growing population in Singapore with talents in every field. -- PM Lee Hsien Loong in the 2006 National Day Rally

Contrast the above statement with an interesting speech given by former Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Singapore, Dr. Ow Chin Hock, in 1978 at the opening of the Family Planning Association.

At the national level, a large population not only means greater demand for jobs and for social infrastructure such as education, housing, medical and health services. It also means that the material gains accruing from economic development have to be shared by a larger number of people, resulting in lower living standards for everyone. Thus, Two Is Enough is not a mere slogan. ‘It is the responsibility of every parent and citizen to ' put it into practice. -- Dr. Ow Chin Hock

I fully agree with Dr. Ow here. He makes alot more sense than our present Singapore leaders who worship at the altar of unlimited growth, which will soon be kept in check by a finite resource base.

Growth Does Not Equal Prosperity!

Speech by Dr. Ow Chin Hock on Family Planning (1978)

After years of encouraging and pursuing a policy of higher birth rates for Singapore, I was a little surprised to read these comments by MM Lee at a dinner marking the Botanic Gardens' 150th anniversary in TODAYonline (see below). Apparently, even he understands our "sunshine limits to growth". So the question to ask, why does Singapore continue to pursue those very policies of economic and population expansion which will only lead to self-destruction due to the over-exploitation of the earth's resources?

We live in a momentous turning point in the history of human civilization where the converging crises of peak oil, climate change, overpopulation and a broken financial system threaten to throw us into an era marked by elevated levels of violence, crime, pestilence, famine and death. Sadly, many Singaporeans remain blissfully unaware of these impending events. I suspect this ignorance may be attributed in part to the frequent silence of the local media and our culture's over-reliance on the government to "fix it all".

The response of governments around the world has been the exact opposite of what they should be doing to tackle these problems. They have been adding fuel to the fire. Instead of downsizing and cutting back on growth and consumption, we have been urged to spend in order to stimulate the economy to meet growth targets. Replacing the GDP metric with the Genuine Progess Indicator is one of the first steps any country should take to measure true progress and wealth. Instead of "re-localising" our economy and our food and energy production to maximise our resilience to external shocks, we promote globalization and free trade to boost our production efficiency and capacity to the delight of the transnational corporations' bottom lines, but to the detriment of the environment, the middle class and the peasantry.

The Minister Mentor is right, we have outsmarted ourselves. So now i ask him, why is Singapore "still doing these stupid things?"

‘Humans are too clever’

MM LEE: I read an analysis ... This man said, for thousands of years of agricultural societies, the only source of energy was the sun which limits what they can grow, what animals can feed on the grass, what population you can sustain. Then came the industrial revolution ... (driven by) fire and coal. Coal is stored solar energy. Then they found oil; also stored solar energy..

Now ... they got this experiment to make two atoms collide and see whether they can generate power like the sun. So man is trying to generate mini suns, that can go on forever. But when you switch it on the whole thing burns up. So man has not found a way ....

And if we do find out what’s the way, will that solve it? I don’t think so. We’ve become too clever by far. If we find a solution to energy, the world will be overpopulated ... In 50 years, we are expecting 9.5 billion people from 6.3 billion now. You find a new energy source, we’ll become 80 billion people in the next century. Then what?.

So I think sooner or later, the human being must come to terms with the fact that this planet called earth can only sustain so much. You go beyond that, you destroy your habitat..

MODERATOR TOMMY KOH: Haven’t they learnt that already?.

MM LEE: If we’ve learnt that, why are we still doing these stupid things?

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/318489.asp

Dr. Bartlett on "political correctness":

In their writings the scientists identify the cause of the problems (climate change and peak oil) as being growing populations. But their recommendations for solving the problems caused by population growth almost never include the recommendation that we advocate stopping population growth. Political Correctness dictates that we do not address the current problem of overpopulation in the U.S. and the world.

Let’s look at two prominent examples of this political correctness. The book, “An Inconvenient Truth” (1) was published to accompany Al Gore’s wonderful film by the same name. On page 216 Gore writes; “The fundamental relationship between our civilization and the ecological system of the Earth has been utterly and radically transformed by the powerful convergence of three factors. The first is the population explosion…”

It’s clear that Gore understands the role of overpopulation in the genesis of global climate change. The last chapter in the book has the title, “So here’s what you personally can do to help solve the climate crisis.” The list of 36 things starts with “Choose energy-efficient lighting” and runs through an inventory of all of the usual suspects without ever calling for us to address overpopulation! Full Article

It's the same over here in Singapore. Except for the lone voices of Dr. Geh Min, former president of the Singapore Nature Society, and Dr. Linda Lim, professor at Michigan University, I do not recall hearing or reading anything from Singapore scientists, academics or politicians about restraining population growth from an ecological perspective. Why are they not speaking up? Are they being "politically correct"?

With our per-capita energy consumption already among the world's highest, policies such as targeting a further 50 per cent increase in our population and resource-wasting practices like the high turnover of buildings - through collective sales, for example - need to be re-thought. Full Article

Can you think of any problem, on any scale, from microscopic to global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way, aided, assisted, or advanced, by having continued population growth at the local level, the state level, the national level, or globally? ---Albert Bartlett

If you have been following the news, you should be aware that Singapore ministers keep harping on the fact that our birth rates are too low, and that our population needs to keep growing for us to prosper economically. I wonder, do they have any understanding of the term "carrying capacity"? If we need more people to maintain economic growth, what happens when we hit 6.5 million people in 20-30 years? Do we aim for 10 million next? And when we reach 10 million, do we target 20 million? Our government's blind and relentless pursuit of growth is shortsighted; Nature is not going to accommodate all of us.

Singapore's ruling party, the PAP, prides itself on being far-sighted:

We operate with a very long-term horizon. No problem is too remote just because its effects may only be evident in the future. We CAN SEE AHEAD to guide our people along the best way forward.

http://www.youngpap.org.sg/abtus_vision.shtml

This statement is laughable. How can they operate with a "very long-term horizon" when the subjects of peak oil, energy depletion, carrying capacity and limits to growth are absent from their publications and speeches? The word "sustainable" may be used quite often in the government's publications, but they are merely paying lip service to true sustainability as their policies betray their line of thought. Our ministers’ lack of understanding of sustainability is a serious problem.

What is carrying capacity?

Ecologists define 'carrying capacity' as the population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a defined habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem upon which it is dependent.

http://dieoff.org/page13.htm

Due to peak oil production, our foreign food sources will become increasingly unreliable in years to come. Industrial farming will peak and their outputs will be greatly reduced. Our food transport systems will be disrupted by soaring fuel prices, protests and strikes. What do we do? We need to grow more food here at home. But the question is, how many people can we feed on our own?

Here is my feeble attempt to calculate the carrying capacity of Singapore. As there are many complex variables (water, food, pollution, sanitation, soil fertility, etc.) which affect the carrying capacity of a habitat, I have greatly simplified my calculations and will only touch on the food production/consumption aspect of it. My method is simple: divide Singapore's land area by the minimum land area required to feed a person.

Singapore land area: 682.7 sq km = 168,698 acres

Acres per person needed for a standard American diet: 1.2 acres to 2.11 acres

Acres per person needed for a largely vegetarian diet: 0.3 acres to 0.6 acres

If Singapore adopts a standard American diet, our carrying capacity would therefore be between 80,000 and 140,000.

If we adopt a largely vegetarian diet, then our carrying capacity would be somewhere between 280,000 and 560,000.

In reality, if we attempt to pursue self-sufficiency, our true carrying capacity is probably much lower than the numbers given above since most of the land in Singapore is not fit for crop cultivation because of our tropical soil and high degree of urbanization.

The possibility of Singapore's population plunging by more than 90% in the years ahead is not out of the question. Rome, the largest city of the ancient world, had a population of one million at the height of the Roman empire and dropped to 20,000 by the 14th century - a plunge of 98%. Thomas Homer Dixon argued in his book, The Upside of Down (available at the National Library), that the ultimate cause of the Roman Empire's collapse was due to diminishing energy returns on investment, or as Joseph Tainter put it: diminishing returns on investments in social complexity.

Likewise today, Singapore is disregarding the axioms of sustainability outlined by Bartlett and others by exhausting critical resources foolishly in our pursuit of economic and population growth to keep Singapore "dynamic, vibrant, and beating" - all of which are unsustainable in the coming decades.

(Tainter’s Axiom): Any society that continues to use critical resources unsustainably will collapse.

(Bartlett’s Axiom): Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.

In 1989, Isaac Asimov, when asked about the population problem, said it well:

Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if population growth continues at its present rate?

Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom metaphor: if two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to stay as long as you want for whatever you need. And everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution.

But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.

The same way democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are the less one individual matters.

Issac Asimov, quoted in A World of Ideas by Bill Moyers (1989)

We have to accept the fact that we are entering a phase of economic and societal contraction. The sensible question to ask is, do we contract in orderly fashion or in anarchy? Judging from the daily news and our ill-preparedness, my hunch is that it will be chaotic and ugly.

In 2007, Minister for National Development, Mah Bow Tan, explained why Singapore needs 6.5 million people:

To grow and create more and better jobs, Singapore must remain open, competitive and relevant to the global market place. In such an economy, we need sufficient people with the right skills and experience. If we cannot get enough from our own people, we must supplement with skilled immigrants. A larger population and greater economic activity will bring about greater buzz, vibrancy and energy, which in turn will attract more people 
and new opportunities.

Obviously, we are still trapped in the growth mindset.

I think he should watch this lecture by professor Bartlett. Anyone who watches this video and continues to believe that population and economic growth can be sustained indefinitely is beyond me. Viewing of this video should be mandatory for all high-level policymakers.

Summary of the video: The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.


Part 1


Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8