Extreme weather not destroying more
Each climate conference day, we will look at the data
Flash flood is not worse:
Lower share of economy damaged by flash floods, not higher (because of more resilience)
From this new peer-reviewed article:
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Each climate conference day, we will look at the data
Flash flood is not worse:
Lower share of economy damaged by flash floods, not higher (because of more resilience)
From this new peer-reviewed article:
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Exactly what's found for floods and for mortality for all areas from last week
Some people have asked why the numbers only start in 1989 — it is because it is running 10-year averages (so 1989 is the average of 1980-1989).
Some people have written than because the article shows there is more e.g. flash flood cost and deaths, it shows I'm wrong — no, read the article. It exactly shows that there is more death because of more people, and more damage because of more wealth
And they quote the study "increasing exposure on disaster risk" as if that is climate - no, the increased exposure is of more people, with more goods, closer to harm's way — that is why costs go up, but the fractional cost goes down
The point of these twitter threads (and the article) is to point out that
1) yes, extreme weather costs have gone up dramatically
but
2) if you control for GDP in the area hit, the cost of extreme weather is going *down*
The increase is more than explained by increased income
1) yes, extreme weather costs have gone up dramatically
but
2) if you control for GDP in the area hit, the cost of extreme weather is going *down*
The increase is more than explained by increased income
