A Tale of Two Countries Part Two: Thai and Singaporean Water, Wind, and What’s Next?

Although reporting on this topic was unfortunately cut short this Fall, there remains prescient lessons to learn from our two case studies. The assessment is similar to the last article in this series: both countries are not handling the climate crisis well, but Singapore is doing better. As always, it comes down to capital—Singapore has more money to work with on a smaller land area. Thus, they achieve more and faster than Thailand. However, and we will cover this more in the closing, Singapore is just as much, if not more, of a lesson on the failures of profit-driven green initiatives. All cards on the table, there is a bias in this piece. It is the belief of this writer that there is no privatized solution to the climate crisis. It is in the hands of the state and citizenry to save the planet; that being said, Monsoon is informational reporting at heart. None of the information in this piece comes from bias, but the inexorable truth I derive from the research for A Tale of Two Countries is that the extensive use of state resources is the only way forward. The use of state authority does not have to be heavy-handed or authoritarian by any means; as we shall see, initiatives for the climate are also for the pleasure of the citizens.

Thailand:

            In covering Thai water conservation, wind power, and overall “carbon footprint,” we should perhaps grade on a curve. Part One discussed Thailand’s place as a developing nation, so they are granted more space to grow using fossil-based energy. Furthermore, the country’s geography is not conducive to wind power. Since the 2000s, the country's north has been testing grounds for wind turbine development. The Ain Shams Engineering Journal published an article in 2023 that analyzed the state of wind power within the region and noted the somewhat limited potential for investment, construction, and—most importantly—energy generation. As a result, only a handful of developments have sprouted up. The authors are sure to note that wind investments in other regions of the country have been relatively successful and that the north could still provide fertile ground for wind energy production. Yet, it is all around an unstable method compared to other options. Wind, in all likelihood, will remain a tertiary green alternative supplanted by Solar or imported energy from its neighbors. Water conservation tells a similar tale of advancement, but to meet its needs, not to exceed them.

            During the waning decades of the 20^th century, Thailand's growing economic prowess did what it did to tens of other countries during that period: rapid development leading to the scramble for natural resources to meet the increased demand. Economic development is a blessing and a curse in this way. Their population has exploded since independence, prompting the rise of cities to play host to commerce and the emerging urban laboring classes. Water, an already limited resource across the global south, is then further strained by industrial pollution and urbanization. The Thai government has not been impotent in this predicament; starting in the 1960s, they launched a series of “Development Plans” to guide the country into economic success. Wrapped up in these plans were considerations for the environment and water distribution. Without getting into the weeds of this subject, water availability projects have been an overwhelming success, but at the cost of stable water accessibility in the future. The country’s population is only going to grow while its access to drinkable water will continue to shrink as a result of intermittent droughts brought about by climate change. Novel solutions to this issue are coming out of Singapore, but we have one final topic to discuss before moving on.

            Thailand's singular, exceptional aspect regarding the Climate is its status as a carbon sink. There are vast scenic jungles and forests in the country’s interior, enabling the government to leverage its increased use of natural gases against the benefits of maintaining that ecosystem. Protection efforts for greenery are of great concern, so drones monitor illegal logging and the general health of the local environment. Although the carbon sink is worth defending, it certainly does not offset Thailand’s increased use of non-renewables. Pairing this reality with the fact that Thailand has been pushing back its timeline for net-zero emissions, the future of Thai stability is unclear, while climate apathy reigns supreme.

Singapore:

            Singapore is where this conversation gets more interesting. Wind power is not of note, as any power of that kind is imported and makes up a tiny fraction of the city’s usage. Instead, water conservation is a major place of pride for Singapore. Since independence from Malaysia, water has become a commodity as well as a necessary resource. Most of Singapore’s water supply is imported from the nation it used to be a part of. For a more in-depth look into the history of Singapore and Malaysia, I recommend you read another article posted on Monsoon titled “Hainanese Chicken Rice: A Meal as Intricate as Its History,” written by yours truly. Up to 60% of Singapore’s fresh water supply is imported, an arrangement only accepted because the city-state has no native access to drinkable water. The debate surrounding the “fairness” of the water importation treaty is contested, but water needs are rising while availability is falling. To mitigate these issues, Singapore has become a world-leading example of water-gathering efficiency. There is not enough space in this article to discuss everything being done, but to name a few remarkable efforts: rainwater is meticulously monitored and fed through their bleeding edge water filtration system, which uses three different stages of filtration. Rainwater is only a tiny fraction of what this system handles. The five purifying centers filter…well…everything.

            All the water in the city is recycled, explaining the borderline over-redundant safety measures. This program was launched in 2003 and was given the title “NEWater,” flanked by a mass media campaign to get the population on board with the prospect of drinking water that once came from less-than-sanitary places; my favorite example of which being a state-sponsored beer brewed using NEWater. We may scoff at the notion, yet the program is an unparalleled success. Water loss between usage and recapturing is negligible in a region where water loss cripples availability—such as in Thailand. However, success is not the same as sufficiency. Singapore must still import water at high margins to meet its needs. NEWwater only covers 40% of their day-to-day total; the remaining 60% comes from seawater desalinization and the aforementioned importation. At the end of this piece, we will return to the necessity for international cooperation, but Singapore has one more leading ecological trick up its sleeve.

            The nation has been getting back in touch with nature as of late. Mass investment has been made into revitalizing public parks around the country with three aims: combat urban isolationism, mitigate flooding, and increase biodiversity. These parks are a genius crafted of the divine. Not only are they self-cleaning due to local weather and flooding, but they are also rapidly drying; the parks incorporate nature and architecture to make the symphony aesthetically pleasing while flooded or dry, and the waterways have become populated by certain breeds of fish. Locally adored and ingeniously efficient, these parks should be—and are—the world's envy. Beyond parks, green roofs, local gardens, and other green measures have become synonymous with the city’s image. Hell, even the Lego set depicting the city carries with it an array of green tiles to match. The bottom line is that saving the planet, or even a country for that matter, is as simple as concentrated reorientation towards nature.

In conclusion of the Two Cities’ tales:

            Consider this section an informed opinion column from a writer who cares deeply for the continuation of life on this planet. For those who do not know, I am a historian by training. Thus far, I have received my bachelor's in History and Classics, so I also take great care to learn the lessons of our forebearers. One of those many lessons is that procrastination results in half-baked near misses, near misses that get people killed. Instead, the only valid path is proactive measures. Stonewall, the Storming of the Bastille, and the May 4^th movement represent events undertaken to meet struggle rather than letting the wave of disaster wash over without a fight. We exist in a similar context to those who acted in those listed events but on a scale perhaps unimaginable to them. We are on the precipice of global collapse and even extinction if we act too slowly or half-heartedly. While I admire the efforts of the countries we have examined, it is not enough.

            1.5 Celsius, which at one point seemed like a long hike away, now sprints at us at the speed of an Olympic runner, and the best we have to offer are carbon taxes and minor advancements in electric vehicles. Even my beloved Singapore—which by all means has the economic ability to reinvent itself—is failing its own already lackluster guidelines set out by Paris and other internal goals. There is a single throughline between all the nations failing to meet their green promises—capital. If I have said it once, then I have said it a million times: there is no private solution to the climate crisis.

            Take the two countries we have surveyed. They repeatedly defer to the business community for solutions and fall short every time, if the corporations even try in the first place. I have read tens of articles, government statements, and academic journal publications for this series; during the process, I became increasingly angered by every new mention of “considerations for business” or “partnerships between the public and private sectors.” A business's goal is to accrue money for its shareholders, not the interest of the communal good. It may seem a convenient solution to make green conversion so profitable that the interests of capital and humanity are aligned. Yet, at the end of the day, these corporations will seek the green dye found on dollar bills over the green grass beneath us. My evidence? The two articles that comprise this series.

            Thailand and Singapore have failed to meet even the lowest targets; valuable lessons can still be drawn, though. Thailand has failed, depressingly so. They have leaned almost entirely on the private sector to fulfill their green initiatives. It is no surprise then that they’ve since failed. Meanwhile, in Singapore, the government has smelt the roses and started to craft plans with the public and environment as the only considerations. The result? Nearly two decades of excellence in green rehabilitation in their urban cityscape.

            Furthermore, the NEWater program is a miracle of human ingenuity. These programs cost untold millions, but they succeeded in their goals. What of the cost? Money will not stop the oceans from rising, crops from failing, and ecosystems from collapsing—although, be my guest if you are a billionaire and want to attempt to use your bank account as a sponge for the rising sea level.

            Government as a human invention is a remarkable thing. We grant the state immense power to complete long-term objectives; we must use it. We can no longer let corporations hold the human species hostage and learn from the mistakes of the past to guide us. Look to success for imitation and failure to avoid. Imagine, every city a Singapore. Every city with multiple ecologically advantageous public parks for people to explore at no personal cost. Every city holding onto its water and extracting the most value out of that limited resource. Imagine, every nation a Singapore. Recognizing that the needed resources for human survival do not follow the artificial borders we put between ourselves. Recognizing that no country can exist independently and that we all need each other.

            I cannot advocate for anything on this platform except that you keep your representatives accountable to the planet they inhabit. If you live in the United States, you will have seen the news of the impending Trump administration’s cabinet picks. As of this article’s creation, Congressperson Lee Zeldin has been tapped for the EPA. This man has previously led court cases against the EPA for doing its job. Things do not look great. We can only scream at those in power to do the right thing and organize demonstrations with a mix of civil disobedience. Make sure our voices are too loud and numerous to be ignored. After that, we can start making the long-term plans required to become a Singapore and maybe even better.

            As it is my promise to you, the reader, to not end my articles on doom and gloom. No matter the topic. So I will say this: we broke the environment, we put ourselves in this danger, so we must fix it. However, humans are resourceful by nature. We will meet the challenge because there is no other option available. The only question is, how will you contribute?