Climate Change- An Inevitable Guillotine?

The verdict is out.

After months of intense study and research, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has pronounced humans 90% guilty of causing Climate Change.

The writer’s message: Climate Change is real, and if nothing is done to stop this, serious consequences might surface in the near future.

Trapped in a time when the effects of global warming manifest at a global scale, much debate has arisen over whether Global Warming is worth fighting.

While there is no doubt that Climate Change is affecting the world, one question comes to mind: Is fighting Climate Change feasible?

One of the assumptions made, is that every country has the ability to take immediate action against climate change. However, this is not true. Developing countries, for example, lack the technology and money to make wholesale or partial conversions to cleaner energy fuels.[1] Others, often rely on their “global warming” activities, such as logging and deforestation, for the bulk of their gross domestic product.[2] Fighting climate change might only give them more social and financial problems. Considering that developing countries make up the majority of the world, fighting climate change on a global scale might be highly unfeasible.

Perhaps a novel way of viewing this issue might be to look upon fighting climate change as an economically-friendly venture. The following flowchart explains this:

Having seen the effects of Climate Change for himself, the writer understands that Climate Change is a serious issue that affects both humanity and the environment. He juxtaposes the world’s situation to that of “thin ice”, which not only refers to the melting polar ice caps, but also the precarious situation that Global Warming has put us into.

Countering claims that fighting climate change hamstrings economic development, the writer ironically points out that the effects of global warming have adverse consequences on the economy, as shown in the financial crisis postulated for India in paragraph 24.[1]

The writer believes that every effort must be taken to fight climate change, no matter how small it is. By putting Climate Change in a global context, the writer reasons inductively that fighting climate change necessitates a global effort. Steps have to be taken to reduce carbon emissions by imposing laws limiting greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy efficiency, and searching for alternative energy sources. If countries from all over the world put worldly benefits over personal gains, and work together to fight climate change, Climate Change can be stopped.

As individuals, we too must do our part in cutting our greenhouse-gas-footprint, by practicing simple habits such as turning off unused electrical appliances, using energy-efficient appliances, taking public transport and practicing the 3Rs- recycle, reuse, and reduce.

Being a student studying Geography, my views may favour the general consensus that Global Warming is worth fighting. Having not worked in the government before, I may be unaware of the concerns and problems that governments have in the fight against global warming. My lack of knowledge in the subject also puts limitations on my understanding of the issue.
[1] “Climate Change is affecting our lives”

See article at:

http://singaporespices.blogspot.com/2007/02/climate-change-already-affects-lives.html

Section before the picture

[1]“China’s sticking to coal”- At present, China is sticking to coal despite experiencing the warmest February on record, and being the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. This is because coal accounts for 70% of its energy needs, making it financially and technologically unfeasible for China to switch to cleaner fuels.
[2] Brazil and Indonesia, for example, often engage in logging, for wood, agriculture, and cattle-ranching.

Biomed Wars Episode 2- Dr Lee Strikes Back

With only 5 years of experience in the Biomedical Industry, Singapore is relatively new in this sector. Yet, much disagreement has already manifested over Singapore’s biomedical sector’s (BMS) strategy.

At present, the Government’s BMS strategy involves undertaking research in a wide spectrum of biomedical fields. Some, such as Dr Lee, believe that Singapore is fighting the campaign on too many fronts.

His message: Singapore’s limited resources are spread too thinly over wide areas of research. Singapore should focus on niche areas, instead of competing with bigger companies on big-name research, where they have lower chances of success.

So what’s the significance of this?

If Singapore adopts Dr Lee’s view on the biomedical strategy, Singapore would become specialised in areas of research where they have a competitive advantage, resulting in reduced focus on other “non-niche areas”. According to Dr Lee, this would rope in greater financial and medical benefits.

Dr Lee’s approach comes in the light of the limited resources that Singapore has. Adding on to Singapore’s lack of experience in the biomedical field, Dr Lee feels that Singapore has a slim chance of success if it continues to fight on so many fronts. Dr Lee fears that this would result in a large wastage of the country’s and taxpayers’ money, without assurance of success. Furthermore, the current “venture capitalism” and commercialisation approach discourages collaboration among researchers in different fields, further straining Singapore’s limited resources.

The irony present, however, is that Singapore is doing well with its current BMS strategy. Last year, the BMS grew a staggering 30.2% to $23 billion in manufacturing output. This number is expected to hit $25 billion in 2015. With such success, there is no reason to change the current BMS strategy.

Aside from this, opponents argue that Singapore should be given more time to identify its true forte. By committing towards carving out a niche, Singapore limits its area of research and loses opportunities, especially when unpredictable breakthroughs occur in other “non-niche areas”. This can be seen when we apply this in a more diverse context in the future. Firstly, foreign investors and companies in Singapore will be reduced to those from niche areas, while education will start to concentrate on the study of these subjects. This would cause niche areas to develop tremendously, and other areas to deteriorate rapidly, creating a precarious situation for the BMS. If the venture fails, Singapore wouldn’t have any other areas of research to fall back on, resulting in the inevitable demise of the BMS. This cogently shows the importance of giving the BMS time to identify its true forte, and engaging in broad-based research to give Singapore a strong foundation to fall back on.

Having not worked in the biomedical field before, my response above does have its limitations and blind-spots. My views may be influenced by the media and the government (who supports the BMS initiative) and may therefore be prejudiced. I believe that both sides have important and relevant views that should be seriously considered, in ameliorating the BMS strategy.

See article at:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/170703.asp