We begin with today's Muckraker ......which follows up on this post. Our own Amanda Griscom Little argues that, contrary to the assertions of some right-wing cranks, no enviro is in fact claiming that global warming caused the tsunami. What some enviros are claiming is that global warming -- along with over-development and other such deleterious human activity -- is raising sea levels and reducing or eliminating the natural barriers (mangroves, coral reefs, etc.) that protect coastlines from the worst of the tsunami damage. As a result, the damage was worse than it needed to be, and will be worse yet in the next catastrophe.
On the issue of those natural barriers, Emily Gertz over at WorldChanging has followed her excellent original piece on mangroves with another stellar, link-filled post on the same subject. She promises more to come, so keep an eye out.
On the other hand!
Via Chris Mooney, I see a thoughtful piece in the New Republic by Daniel Sarewitz and Roger A. Pielke Jr., arguing that enviros would be wise not to tie their arguments for action on climate change too closely to the threat of natural disasters.
Lamentably, they start their piece by implying that greens have placed the tsunami on the altar of climate change. Again, this a) would be stupid, and b) hasn't actually happened. Their examples, like the examples of the cranks Amanda cites, don't support the implication.
However, Sarewitz and Pielke go on to mount a highly persuasive argument that when it comes to natural disasters -- our vulnerability to them, their rising toll, the need for better preparedness -- global warming is a relatively tangential issue. The real problems are socioeconomic.
Data from the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, Belgium, as well as the Red Cross and the reinsurance industry, show that the number of disasters affecting at least 100 people or resulting in a call for international assistance has increased from an average of about 100 per year in the late '60s to between 500 and 800 per year by the early twenty-first century. The reason is not an increase in the frequency or severity of storms, earthquakes, or similar events, but an increase in vulnerability because of growing populations, expanding economies, rapid urbanization, and migrations to coasts and other exposed regions.While such disasters cost developed nations more in absolute terms, the per capita costs -- not to mention the toll in human lives and injuries -- is far higher in developing nations.
Disasters disproportionately harm poor people in poor countries because those countries typically have densely populated coastal regions, shoddily constructed buildings, sparse infrastructure, and grossly inadequate public health capabilities. Poor land use leads to widespread environmental degradation, such as deforestation and wetlands destruction, which in turn exacerbates flooding and landslides. Emergency preparation and response capabilities are often inadequate, and hazard insurance is usually unavailable, further slowing recovery. Thus, while the world's poorest 35 countries make up only about 10 percent of the world's population, they suffered more than half of the disaster-related deaths between 1992 and 2001.What can be done, both to reduce the vulnerability gap between rich and poor nations and to reduce the overall impact of disasters? Despite what you might think from following the flow of research money, international conferences, and public statements from enviros, "it is absurd," the authors say, "to suggest that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an important part of the answer."
Empirical research strongly suggests that global warming has not increased the harmfulness of weather-related natural disasters in the past century, though it is likely to do so in the future. But even that future increase pales beside the ongoing rise in disaster-related deaths, which is precipitous and immediate and calls out for an equally urgent response.
Most tools needed to reduce disaster vulnerability already exist, such as risk assessment techniques, better building codes and code enforcement, land-use standards, and emergency-preparedness plans. The question is why disaster vulnerability is so low on the list of global development priorities.Sarewitz and Pielke are too hard on greens in their piece, saying those who link global warming and natural disasters are either "ill-informed or dishonest" -- even as they acknowledge such a link exists. Their point, though, is that the link is tenuous and speculative, while the death toll of natural disasters is not.
There's a larger point here for environmentalists. Global warming is a serious issue and warrants concerted action. But it is not the only issue, and it will not serve the environmental cause well to be associated exclusively with unremitting climate-change alarmism as a response to every issue. Deforestation, wetlands loss, and over-development are all ecological issues more directly pertinent to disaster preparedness than global warming. And on a broader level, the only thing that will prevent these ecological losses is development: lifting the poor of the world out of poverty, reducing the distance between the gap and the core. Enviros are, as I've said before, often hobbled by their single-issue focus. If we, not as enviros but as progressives, really want to reduce human suffering and protect the global environment, our energy and time is often best spent tackling ecological problems indirectly -- by fighting poverty, pushing for third-world debt relief, lobbying for fairer and more progressive tax policy in developed nations, and working to find and celebrate examples of the kind of entrepreneurial innovations in energy, transportation, urban planning, medicine, politics, etc. that will create a world where ecological health is a natural (pardon the pun) side effect.
UPDATE: See related comments from U.N. Environment Program chief Klaus Toepfer. He says straightforwardly that climate change and the tsunami are not connected, but adds re: climate change and natural disasters, "I'm convinced it would be a massive mistake to try to calculate one threat against the other." This is insanity. We do not have unlimited time and resources. At least in the short term, of course we have to calculate one against the other.
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
New interactive map shows devastating effects of global temperature rise
Comments
View as Threaded
Geoff Dabelko Posted 1:57 pm
06 Jan 2005
But the latter parts of Malloy's column speak to Dave's comments about environmentalists' susceptibility to critique for being single-mindedly focused on climate change. Malloy lambasts environmentalists for being anti-development and impeding efforts to address poverty in developing countries. There is the twisted possibility of converging arguments from those who love unfettered growth in the north and those who want to develop to survive in the south. You can begin to see the PR disaster potential with greens portrayed as more concerned about possible sea level rise horrors decades hence while dirty water and mosquitos provide real body counts today (2-3 million per year presently for just the diarrhea types, majority of which are children).
He also cites banning the use of DDT to kill malaria-carrying mosquitos as a further example of environmentalist's missing the forest for the trees. Picking your poison in this equation may actually mean do I die early or do I die later. Perhaps Gristmill contributor Pete Myers, the real environmental health expert, could provide nuance to two bad choices.
Geoff Dabelko
Permalink
Paul Posted 9:57 am
11 Jan 2005
A reader asked the following:
Is there any conceivable connection between atmospheric behavior and
tectonic activity? In other words, could changes to the atmosphere
trigger mantle events? -- Carole McIntyre, Waynesburg, Penn.
Guess what? There IS such a connection that is
part of what Jim Lovelock and Lynn Margulis might
call a "Gaian feedback mechanism"...
I refer to pages 130-131 of the chapter called METABOLOISM AND
PLANETARY BIOCHEMISTRY, In 'HEALING GAIA'.
"Could Gaia be, even partially, responsible for the plate tectonic
movements of the Earth's Crust? The Earth is certainly, it seems,
exceptional among the known planets in having such movements. It was
the geologist Don Anderson who first speculated that the
sedimentation of limestone on the ocean floor, long ago in life's
history, could have so altered the chemistry and temperature of the
crustal rocks as to make it possible for the machinery of plate
movement to begin. The geological event that changed the crustal
rocks near the continental margins and made the crust unstable is
known as the "basalt-eclogite phase change". The early presence of
the microflora of the oceans, and their constant rain of limestone
tests to form limestone deposits, thus may have been the trigger that
led to the slow swirl of the crustal plates across the globe."
Add to that more carbon in the atmosphere, and you create a
possibility of faster rate of limestone deposition. Add to that the
dynamics of complex, non-linear catastrophic change, and you have the
"forbidden knowledge", perhaps, that could lead us to see a very real
link between increased atmospheric carbon(climate change), tectonic
movements, and thus, tsunami generating events. Just now, both sides
are hagggling over who was stupid enough to suggest that climate
change had anything to do with the tsunamis. Well, maybe it is not so
silly a thought after all! Maybe "The People" have an intuition that
is more than just paranoia; it's more like "meta-noia",that is,
knowledge that goes beyond our official states of denial, so it gets
deflected into rumours of underground nuclear tests. By the way,
there ARE deep underground nuclear reactions going on....only, they
are part of planetary dynamics: the "inner heat" of the earth's
interior is generated partly by radioactivity.
So, my point is, the answer is a resounding 'YES!'
First Name: Paul
Ideas are a difference that makes a difference.
Permalink
Storm Dragon Posted 9:24 am
20 Jan 2005
Permalink