Literally the second sentence in an article that was submitted:
> The city-state, which has said its efforts to cope with climate change are as crucial as military defense, has prioritized greater use of its trains and buses, Masagos Zulkifli, minister for environment and water resources, said in an interview Wednesday.
And yet, they make statements like this which seem counterproductive. So, why?
And Singapore can't do shit to the way the rest of the world combats climate. It can have an impact within its own borders. It (correctly) identified that the public transport makes more sense in a city-state. It incentivizes public transport while de-incentivizing car ownership in general (electric or not) because there's not enough space for the supporting infrastructure.
You'd learn all of this and more by reading the article before commenting.
One more point is that majority of the cars are discarded when they finish 10 years. So newer car with better technology produce lesser emissions.
Singapore government is far sighted that's the reason they focus more on public transportation.
I would have thought that given its geographical location, climate would in fact be a primary concern of Singapore. So why is it not? One could hardly accuse Singaporean government of short-sightedness.