Fewer hazy days, bigger bill: Singapore’s estimated 2026 haze costs hit S$2.32b, surpassing 2015

Haze is polluted, smoky air that reduces air quality and can harm health. It can become a cross-border problem when smoke from fires travels beyond the country where the fires started. This matters because affected countries may suffer health, economic and social losses even when they did not start the fires.

The article links future haze risks to land clearing by burning, particularly in Indonesia. Smoke from those fires can move across borders into Singapore and other affected countries. Once there, it can contribute to illness, medical costs, missed work, tourism losses and reduced public well-being.

Singapore’s 2026 episode caused an estimated S$2.32 billion in losses, despite fewer hazy days and lower average pollution than in 2015. The researchers proposed helping finance fire-free alternatives to burning. They also said companies responsible for fires should remain accountable, while prevention funding should be phased and tied to measurable results.

Singapore’s estimated economic loss from the 2026 haze was S$2.32 billion, or RM7.34 billion. The estimate was calculated as at October 31. It exceeded the inflation-adjusted estimate for the 2015 crisis, making the newer episode more costly in money terms despite its lower average pollution levels.

The comparison is especially striking because 2026 had fewer hazy days and was described as shorter and less severe. The 2015 loss, adjusted for inflation, was estimated at S$2.23 billion. The difference between the figures was about 4 per cent, according to The Business Times report cited in the article.

The researchers linked the higher total to population growth, rising incomes, increased visitor spending and a greater estimated health burden. Some categories fell, including time lost to illness and protective spending. However, higher health-related costs and tourism losses more than offset those declines in the preliminary assessment.

The cost of haze depends on more than how many days the air is polluted or how high pollution levels become. Economic exposure matters too. A larger population means more people can be affected, while higher incomes and visitor spending increase the value of lost activity. The estimated health burden also changes the total.

For 2026, population growth and rising incomes helped push the estimate upward. Increased visitor spending meant tourism losses were more costly. Health-related costs, including medical treatment and the economic effects of illness and premature deaths, were also higher than in 2015. These increases outweighed declines in some other categories.

The shorter and less severe episode reduced time taken off work and other activities because of illness. It also lowered spending on protective measures such as masks. Yet the overall estimate still reached S$2.32 billion, about 4 per cent above the inflation-adjusted 2015 figure. This shows why headline pollution measures do not capture total damage.

The S$2.32 billion estimate covered the wider economic and social damage caused by haze. Medical treatment was only one part of the health category. The researchers also counted the economic effects of illness and premature deaths, which capture losses extending beyond immediate healthcare bills.

The assessment included tourism losses and the time people took off work and other activities because of illness. It also counted spending on protective measures, such as masks. These categories reflect how haze changes behaviour, reduces participation and disrupts normal routines. The estimate additionally considered public well-being, including people’s willingness to pay for cleaner air.

Not every category increased in 2026. Lost time and protective spending declined because the episode was shorter and less severe. However, health-related costs and tourism losses rose compared with 2015. By including these wider effects, the assessment presented haze as a broad public cost rather than simply a medical problem.

Haze affects people through both health damage and disruption to daily life. The assessment included medical treatment, illness and premature deaths, showing that the burden extends beyond temporary discomfort. It also considered public well-being, including how much people might be willing to pay for cleaner air.

Illness can make people miss work and other activities. That lost time has an economic cost and can interrupt ordinary routines. Haze can also discourage visitors or reduce tourism activity, creating losses for the wider economy. People may spend money on protective measures such as masks, adding another household or personal cost.

The 2026 episode was shorter and less severe, so losses from illness-related time away and protective spending declined. Yet health-related costs and tourism losses were higher than in 2015. The researchers’ total therefore captures both direct harm and the value people place on cleaner air, not only hospital or clinic expenses.

The article connects future haze risk to land clearing by burning, particularly in Indonesia. It refers to Singapore and other affected countries as the countries that bear the consequences. However, it does not identify specific companies or name every country connected to particular fires. It only says that companies responsible for fires should be held accountable.

The researchers proposed a “victim-pays” approach. Under it, countries affected by haze would help finance alternatives that make fire-free land-clearing practices more affordable. The mechanism is preventive: shared funding could reduce the chance of fires and the damage they cause. It would not replace responsibility for companies linked to fires.

The proposal raises fairness questions, which the researchers acknowledged. They argued that countries might be better off contributing if supporting fire-free practices costs less than the damage avoided. Any intervention would need cost-benefit analysis, phased funding and measurable results. The article does not specify a final payment system or named corporate payers.

Governments might fund fire-free land-clearing methods because prevention could cost less than responding to repeated haze damage. The 2026 episode was estimated to cost Singapore S$2.32 billion. If a prevention measure costs less than the losses it avoids, affected countries could be better off supporting it, even when they did not cause the fires.

The researchers proposed making fire-free practices more affordable, particularly in Indonesia. A cost-benefit analysis would compare the intervention’s price with expected reductions in health costs, tourism losses, lost time, protective spending and harm to public well-being. It should also examine whether the measure meaningfully reduces fire risks rather than simply shifting spending.

The researchers cautioned that a S$2.32 billion haze bill does not justify an equal prevention budget automatically. They called for phased funding tied to measurable results. Companies responsible for fires should remain accountable, while public money should support only interventions shown to deliver worthwhile reductions in damage.