02 September 2009
Our basic attitude has been that environmental sustainability is not incompatible with economic development. We have systematically and resolutely tackled used water and other issues faced by cities all over the world.May I ask the Prime Minister: How would you consider this externality? Positive or negative for the environment?
Speech Link
Vietnam’s prime minister has asked relevant ministries to inspect Mekong Delta sand exports after a local newspaper said exports to Singapore were booming, altering the area’s water flow and causing environmental damage.Is this Peak Sand for Singapore? Now that Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam have banned sand exports, perhaps we could source for sand from further locations like Africa or South America to fuel the construction sector of our economy in order to sustain our misguided quest for continuous economic growth, which has been mistakenly viewed as desirable and beneficial, but which in reality has turned UNeconomic.
Full Report
This ban on sand exports would probably lead to higher construction costs which will be passed down to the buyers. Perhaps this could be reason for another property "boom"? Rejoice! Because it adds to economic growth (GDP)!
It's only sand this time. What happens if Thailand and Vietnam ban the export of rice because of a poor harvest? I don't think many of us would enjoy going on a calorie-restricted diet. Don't bother to turn to Malaysia and Indonesia for help because they are rice importers themselves with a total fertility rate around twice that of Singapore's. If they can't feed themselves, you can forget about them lending us a hand.
Does anyone still think we need 6.5 million of us to maintain the Singapore government's nonsensical notion of a sustainable growth economy?
Hanoi - Surging international demand for sand is leading to excessive dredging in Vietnam's Mekong Delta, damaging the terrain and the environment, officials said Monday.
The jump in sand excavation is fueled by demand from Singapore's construction industry, which is searching for new sources after Indonesia and Cambodia banned exports.
Full Report
Labels: housing, overpopulation, Singapore population
26 July 2008
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.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"?
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
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
Labels: al gore, albert bartlett, overpopulation, Singapore population
16 May 2008
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
15 April 2008
I posted the following comments on a blog post by a Member of Parliament, Dr. Lam Pin Min, concerning soaring rice prices:I think the Singapore government is doing the right thing in allowing the SGD to rise, but it is not a good long term solution. Singapore and the rest of the world are not addressing the root causes of the food problem: overpopulation, limits to growth and declining availability of fossil fuels. Just as you cannot cure a cancer patient by treating the symptoms, so you cannot solve the current food crisis by addressing only the symptoms - which in this case is price inflation. A stronger SGD may help in the short term, but it does not address the root causes.
First, we need to understand the "perfect storm" that we are about to face. In a presentation by Paul Chefurka: We are facing a perfect storm of 1) Ecological Collapse, driven by the depletion of natural resources and Climate Change; 2) Energy shortages, driven by Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas; 3) Economic destabilization driven by American debt loads and a complex and unsustainable global financial system.
I shudder every time I hear our ministers encourage more childbirths and their overemphasis on economic growth. Don't they understand our limits to growth? Have they not read the works and warnings by scientists who have been telling us since the 1970s that humanity's unrestrained growth will result in ecological collapse? Don't they get it?
The Green Revolution of the 1970s was successful due not only to molecular genetics, but also to increased use of pesticides, diesel or gas powered irrigation pumps, and synthetic nitrogen fertilizes - all of which are highly dependent on oil and natural gas. We are unfortunately witnessing a "peak" or decline in the availability of such fossil fuels to which there are no suitable substitutes. How shall modern farmers, who are highly dependent on these resources, grow enough to feed the world in coming years?
Instead of emphasizing economic growth, or should I say Uneconomic growth since such growth only inflates our GDP numbers but not necessarily our well being, our government needs to rethink their priorities and look at how we can become more resilient and sustainable even at the expense of growth. They need to aim for the following:
1) Zero or better still, negative population growth
2) Increase local food production to the point of or near self-sufficiency
3) Increase local energy production to the point of or near self-sufficiency
4) A Steady State Economy
These goals may sound too radical, but I believe it's the only way to ensure our survival and sustainability in the long run. Cuba successfully overcame their oil crisis in the 1990s when they lost 90% of their oil imports after the collapse of the Soviet Union - whom they were so dependent on for oil. It will serve us well to study what they did for this could very well happen to us. In time to come, do not be surprise if such an oil crisis happens to us in a very short period of time because of nationalism and hoarding by oil exporting countries.
Is there anyone in parliament who is perceptive enough to understand these issues? Is there anyone in parliament who is bold enough to bring up these issues and to challenge our flawed assumptions in economics and growth?
I don't wish to sound presumptuous or arrogant, but the following links should be required reading for all our ministers and MPs. I have gone through the links and I am very concerned about our future. These links have altered my fundamental worldview. Frankly, I'm feeling very pessimistic about our survival chances unless we address the above concerns immediately. We don’t have much time left.
Peak Oil Primer
Converging Crisis (PDF)
Youtube lecture on exponential growth and overpopulation
Fossil Fuels and Agriculture
Threats of Peak Oil to the Global Food Supply
The Economist Has No Clothes
Mainstream Economics and the Environmental Crisis
FAQ on Steady State Economy
Peak Oil and Economic Growth
World Scientists' Warning To Humanity (1992)
How Cuba Survived Peak Oil
Cuba's Special Period
Uneconomic Growth
Biophysical Economics
Approaching the world’s environmental problems through the Entropy Law
World Financial Crisis Explained
Labels: ecology, economics, inflation, Lam Pin Min, overpopulation, peak oil, rice, sgd, singapore, steady state