Source: Angus Gunn, Encyclopedia of Disasters, 2007
But weren't past floods due to poverty whereas today's floods are due to excess rainfall?
No. "Whilst the roots of the 1931 flood lay in pattern of environmental history, the proximate cause of the disaster was extremely high levels of precipitation."
Does that mean climate change isn't playing a role in China's floods? No. But its role has to be considered in context of urbanization, better infrastructure, and declining deaths and damages
"The area of land damaged by flooding each year since 1950 shows an increasing trend, which suggests that the potential impact of floods is also increasing, although mortality directly associated with flooding has been decreasing"
Flood management plays a decisive role. Hurricane Sandy (New York, 2012) was more expensive than Typhoon Winnie (Shanghai 1997) bc Shanghai "repeatedly updated its flood protection while New York City failed to do so"
Around the world, nations fail to properly prepare for floods until catastrophe strikes.
The Dutch put off preparing for floods for decades, despite much of the Netherlands being below sea level, until 1,836 people were killed in major 1953 flood.
Does this mean we shouldn't bother reducing emissions? Of course not. Emissions are going down and should keep going down unless we do something stupid, like shut down/stop building nuclear plants, or make natural gas, the main driver of lower emissions, scarce & expensive.
The cost of natural disasters has been going down since 1990
The world’s leading expert on this is @RogerPielkeJr who testified before the Senate on this 2 days ago
@SenatorTester asked the expert from the Union of Concerned Scientists to counter him & of course she couldn’t
That @SenatorTester & so many people are shocked by what should be commonplace knowledge shows the degree to which activists, scientists, & journalists have brainwashed everyone into thinking the exact opposite of the truth
For decades, Roger has explained that the rising cost of disasters is a consequence of more wealth in harm's way.
He shows people pictures of Miami Beach from 1925 and today. When you factor in rising wealth, which is called "normalizing" the data, there is no trend.
If climate change is worsening disasters, high-intensity fires, & mass extinction (ie 75% species) then why
- are disaster deaths at their lowest in 120 years?
- do high-intensity fires become low-intensity ones in well-managed forests?
- are 73% of species *not* threatened?
I have been accused of being wrong about disasters, fires, and extinctions, and of course I might be: I have been wrong before. More than once. And I am human.
But when I have been shown to be wrong, I have not only admitted it, I have explained why & how I was wrong, in detail.
I was wrong about nuclear energy. I thought we didn't need it. I thought the waste was a huge problem. I thought many died from nuclear energy accidents.
I investigated why I was so wrong & spoke publicly about it:
People say climate change caused the floods in Europe but the main reason for them was the failure of warning systems, dams, and the public's response.
In truth, deaths & damage from flooding in Europe declined dramatically over last 150 years
The floods in Europe that killed over 150 people in recent days were a result of climate change, many people say. “Deadly Floods Show World Unprepared to Cope with Extreme Weather,” blared the headline of The New York Times.
“‘No One Is Safe.’” Said a German climate activist, “This is the climate crisis unravelling in one of the richest parts of the world.” The country’s interior minister agreed. "This is a consequence of climate change," he said.
“There are a lot of myths around the Portuguese model,” said the architect of its drug program.
The main one, he said, is that “we just liberalized [drugs], that 'You can do whatever you want. You have all the room to develop the behavior you wish.’ That’s not the case."
"Using drugs is still prohibited. There’s a clear sign of disapproval from our society. We do not incentivize or normalize the use of drugs.”
“If somebody was injecting heroin in public in Portugal,” I asked, “what would happen to them?”
“They would be arrested.”
We were on Zoom and I had a shocked look on my face.
“Yes!” he said. “You would sent to the police station. The substances would be apprehended. And if he or she had more than the amount for personal use for 10 days, there would be criminal penalties."
New study finds that, of the people released from jail before trial in San Francisco, half committed new crimes and 1 out of 6 committed a violent crime
"San Francisco’s observed safety rate is substantially lower than local & national validated rates"
I, like many people, have long liked the idea of pre-trial diversion, for some crimes. Why hold people in jail at great cost to taxpayer? Few will re-offend, I thought.
That assumption turned out to be wrong.
“Nobody can look at this report and say we’re doing great. It validates the experience that people in San Francisco are feeling when they’re concerned about crime,” said SF Supervisor @SupStefani
She was rightly skeptical about previous (wrong) reports of low recidivism rates.