The world is fast warming. Time for Singapore to think about living underground and on artificial islands?

Climate change has been described as one of the gravest challenges facing humankind and the figures don’t lie.

Temperatures rose by 0.17°C per decade on average for the last five decades. More alarming, however, is the accelerated rate of increase — temperatures jumped up 0.4°C just from 2011 to 2016 alone.

And just last year, July set the record for the hottest month ever on earth.

Without immediate, significant and effective climate reformation, the world is headed for a 3.2°C increase by 2100, with a 95 per cent chance of an increase of between 2°C and 4.9°C. Some data trends forecast global temperatures rising by 4°C in just 22 years.

Countless studies have shown that we need to prevent temperatures from rising beyond 2°C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100 to avoid catastrophic outcomes. Many say that if temperatures breach 1.5°C, climate change will be irreversible.

Australia alone saw a 1.52°C increase in 2019 over the 1961 to 1990 long-term average, let alone pre-industrial levels. It is clear that the need for climate reformation is more urgent than ever.

Singapore’s commitment to reduce global warming, following the Paris Agreement, is encapsulated in our Nationally Determined Contribution of reducing our emissions intensity by 36 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 and stabilising thereafter.

This has been viewed as highly insufficient by the Climate Analytics and New Climate Institute.

They calculated that Singapore’s efforts, relative to its current carbon emissions and intensity, would actually contribute to global temperatures rising by 3°C to 4°C by as early as 2030 but certainly within this century.

It is discomforting to know that we are not alone and that many other countries also faced a similar critique.

A 4°C temperature increase could result in sea levels rising by an estimated minimum of 6.9m. For an island state like Singapore where about 30 per cent of the country is less than 5m above mean sea level, this has serious negative implications.

As a teenager, I used to go to the beach behind Parkway Parade. There, on the sandy coast a few steps from the grass verge, stood a short wooden tower. Even at high tide, the waves would be metres away.

Today, the sea laps right at the grass verge. The wooden tower is long gone.

We do not need to wait for further climate change to see the loss of land to rising sea levels. It has been going on for years already and will continue to do so at an accelerated rate if we do nothing.

REDEFINING SPACE FOR AN EXTREME SCENARIO

As an island nation with a small population, Singapore may not be able to monumentally shift the course of climate change.

It would also be foolhardy to depend on the efforts of others for climate reformation to take place while doing nothing ourselves to prepare for the worst. (Climate reformation is a relatively new term referring to a solution to climate change, as opposed to climate action which may not necessarily mean a climate-positive outcome.)

At the same time, adaptive measures by Singapore to adapt to rising sea levels, such as the testbedding of polders at Pulau Tekong, can be challenging.

One key factor is that building polders through land reclamation requires sand, a legal supply of which is all but non-existent for Singapore.

Given that Singapore’s geological composition is ideal for underground living, we should look at expanding existing underground caverns that are currently housing crude oil.

Living and working underground en masse is possible, given that a rudimentary system has existed under Beijing’s streets for a few years.

Naturally we would need to ensure that any excavation maximises the available space while allowing for further excavation.

Measures also need to be taken to ensure that access to these underground spaces are well-ventilated yet flood-resistant with sufficient drainage systems.

The Government could play an instrumental role in facilitating public acceptance with restrictions on the size and number of homes above ground and/or incentives for living below ground, paid for by an above ground tax imposed on those who choose to live above the surface.

Companies could also be incentivised to move their operations below ground with tax relief.

Complementing the underground spaces would be “very large floating structures” akin to floating islands. These are actually a brainchild of National University of Singapore civil engineering professor C.M. Wang from years ago.

These floating cities could feature strata residences, airports, ports, parks and even vertical farms, tapping advances in the Netherlands’ poultry and vegetable farming techniques to help ensure our food security.

The Dutch have employed farming technology with promising results, producing yields far above average, using fewer resources like water and eliminating chemical pesticides.

Below the surface of the floating cities would be submerged living, commercial and recreational spaces, similar to the Jules Undersea Lodge, Aquarius Reef Base and others.

While challenges like water pressure and air quality constrain the depth and thus the area that can be used, the Japanese have already begun developing underwater cities which are planned for operation by the 2030s.

While Japan’s Ocean Spiral underwater eco-city is built on the seafloor, our floating cities could be built downward from the surface. This would allow for indefinite sea level rise without any impact on living depth, easier access to the surface and mobility.

Above ground or underwater, all these adaptive measures will result in costs that are difficult to quantify now.

Some of the many factors affecting the price tag include materials used, complexity of ventilation, sewage and electrical systems, and the necessary scale of the city.

And while these alternative scenarios for our future may seem drastic or farfetched, it might be prudent not to rule them out given how fast the world is warming.

The question is: Will we make climate reformative choices now or wait until we have no choice?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Adam Reutens-Tan works in a charity and has been an advocate for climate reformation for most of his life. He was previously the senior sustainability manager at StarHub for over four years.