20-Year Review Shows 90% Of Disasters Are Weather-Related

The United Nations Office For Disaster Risk Reduction

20-year review shows 90% of disasters are weather-related; US, China, India, Philippines and Indonesia record the most

A new report issued today by the UN, “The Human Cost of Weather Related Disasters”, shows that over the last twenty years, 90% of major disasters have been caused by 6,457 recorded floods, storms, heatwaves, droughts and other weather-related events.
The five countries hit by the highest number of disasters are the United States (472), China (441), India (288), Philippines (274), and Indonesia, (163).
The report and analysis compiled by the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) and the Belgian-based Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) demonstrates that since the first Climate Change Conference (COP1) in 1995, 606,000 lives have been lost and 4.1 billion people have been injured, left homeless or in need of emergency assistance as a result of weather-related disasters.
The report also highlights data gaps, noting that economic losses from weather-related disasters are much higher than the recorded figure of US$1.891 trillion, which accounts for 71% of all losses attributed to natural hazards over the twenty-year period. Only 35% of records include information about economic losses. UNISDR estimates that the true figure on disaster losses – including earthquakes and tsunamis – is between US$250 billion and US$300 billion annually.
Introducing the report, Ms. Margareta Wahlström, head of UNISDR, said: “Weather and climate are major drivers of disaster risk and this report demonstrates that the world is paying a high price in lives lost. Economic losses are a major development challenge for many least developed countries battling climate change and poverty.
“In the long term, an agreement in Paris at COP21 on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be a significant contribution to reducing damage and loss from disasters which are partly driven by a warming globe and rising sea levels. For now, there is a need to reduce existing levels of risk and avoid creating new risk by ensuring that public and private investments are risk-informed and do not increase the exposure of people and economic assets to natural hazards on flood plains, vulnerable low-lying coastlines or other locations unsuited for human settlement.”
Ms. Wahlström said that the development year had started this March with the adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, a 15-year package endorsed by the UN General Assembly, which sets out clear targets for a substantial reduction in disaster losses, including mortality, numbers of people affected, economic losses and damage to critical infrastructure including schools and hospitals.
Professor Debarati Guha-Sapir, head of CRED, said: “Climate change, climate variability and weather events are a threat to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals’ overall target of eliminating poverty. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle other risk drivers such as unplanned urban development, environmental degradation and gaps in early warnings. This all requires ensuring people are risk informed and strengthening institutions which manage disaster risk.”
Key details from the report
Asia accounts for the lion’s share of disaster impacts including 332,000 deaths and 3.7 billion people affected. The death toll in Asia included 138,000 deaths caused by Cyclone Nargis which struck Myanmar in 2008.
In total, an average of 335 weather-related disasters were recorded per year between 2005 and 2014, an increase of 14% from 1995-2004, and almost twice the level recorded during 1985-1995.
The extent of the toll taken by disasters on society is revealed by other statistics from CRED’s Emergency Events Data Base, or EM-DAT: 87 million homes were damaged or destroyed over the period of the survey.
Floods accounted for 47% of all weather-related disasters from 1995-2015, affecting 2.3 billion people and killing 157,000. Storms were the deadliest type of weather-related disaster, accounting for 242,000 deaths or 40% of the global weather-related deaths, with 89% of these deaths occurring in lower-income countries.
Overall, heatwaves accounted for 148,000 of the 164,000 lives lost due to extreme temperatures. 92% of heatwave deaths occurred in high-income countries, with Europe accounting for 90%.
Drought affects Africa more than any other continent, with EM-DAT recoding 136 events there between 1995 and 2015, including 77 droughts in East Africa alone. The report recommends that there needs to be improved data collection on indirect deaths from drought.

Links

• Download the report
• Download press release [PDF 392.03 kb]
• Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

Climate For Change: Why Paris Matters So Much

Fairfax - Editorial

The five-yearly reviews mooted for the Paris agreement are essential to holding global warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The effects of climate change can be managed. Photo: Jessica Shapiro

Five years is a very short time when it comes to measuring global warming. It's an age, however, in terms of assessing the politics of climate change.
The political momentum for concerted global action looks much better today than it did five years ago when the Labor government of Julia Gillard started preparing for the ill-fated carbon tax. In recent months many nations have pledged to reduce emissions further than expected. Technology is evolving rapidly towards the goal of cleaner emissions. The price of renewables is falling. Business is starting to invest more in green energy. Even the Coalition government in Canberra is sensing the community's climate for change.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will arrive at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris on Monday and may even stay for much of the 12-day duration. That's progress. His predecessor, Tony Abbott, wasn't even committed to attending.
While expectations are high, they have been dashed before.
Just nine weeks ago Mr Turnbull ousted Mr Abbott by pledging not to change the Coalition's climate policy. But he has - at least at the margins. He's saved and strengthened the Climate Change Authority and promised a review of Direct Action after the election while suggesting his government is open to even stronger goals in Paris. Crucially, he is open to toughening through five-yearly reviews our underwhelming emissions reduction targets for 2030 – 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels, or 19 per cent on 2000 levels.
On the face of it Australia is back in the green economy business and voters seem happy with that. Subscribers to the Herald can participate in a special SMH Live event on Wednesday night at the Museum of Contemporary Art in The Rocks to discuss how best to utilise Australia's revitalised climate for change.
One thing is certain: Direct Action is too expensive to stand alone as a long-term solution. As configured it will not be able to deliver anything like the required reductions. As such there a lot of "ifs" involved in the Turnbull government's commitments, no matter the outcome in Paris. Mr Turnbull will only be able to do more to tackle global warming if he can overcome the hardliners in his government; if he wins the next election convincingly to obtain a mandate for agility on climate change policy; if voters fear the words "carbon tax" when uttered by Labor but don't mind "what works best" when uttered by the Coalition; and if the Prime Minister is prepared to morph existing elements of Direct Action into a globally linked, market-based reduction scheme as soon as 2017.
Mr Turnbull's task will be made much easier if the 196 nations in Paris can agree to ratchet up action. Success there will help neutralise Labor's market-based plans - yet to be revealed in detail besides a target of 50 per cent renewables in contrast to the government's reduced renewable energy target. A deal in Paris will also help Mr Turnbull outmanoeuvre internal Coalition critics.
The five-yearly reviews mooted for the Paris agreement are essential to holding global warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Thus far the pledges of nations only hold warming to 2.7 degrees, although that's still better than the estimated 4-5 degree warming should nations continue on current polluting paths. The hope is for a snowball effect as each nation offers more action to reach ever increasing emission reductions targets.
Sticking points linger over the long-term goal, though. Mr Turnbull has agreed to support the 2 degrees goal and is reportedly ready to accept 1.5 degrees if consensus can be reached. The ambition for fossil fuels is also ticklish, with Australia preferring "carbon neutrality" by 2050 rather than the stronger "decarbonisation" or "zero emissions". The Herald agrees coal will contribute to economies for decades, but Australia must invest far more in innovations to find cheaper, cleaner energy and carbon storage. The other obstacle will be finding more money to compensate developing nations for the economic hardship of solutions to a problem caused in large part by developed nations. Already $US100 billion a year by 2020 has been promised but there are demands for guarantees on more after that. Some developing nations and Saudi Arabia are expected to object to any tough language in the Paris communique at all.
The Herald hopes Australia's apparent return to the lead in fighting global warming will help convince naysayers here and abroad that the Paris summit offers an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

Making The Moral Case On Climate Change Ahead Of Paris Summit

The Conversation - Lawrence Torcello

Poor people are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather and sea level rise, yet have contributed little to the causes.  asiandevelopmentbank/flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Much of the general public is well aware of scientists' recommendations on climate change. In particular, climate scientists and other academics say society needs to keep global temperatures to no more than two degrees Celsius below preindustrial levels to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change.
But now more academics are weighing in on climate change: philosophers, ethicists, and social scientists among others.
More than 2,100 academics, and counting, from over 80 nations and a diversity of disciplines have endorsed a moral and political statement addressed to global leaders ahead of December’s UN climate conference in Paris.
A few of the more widely recognizable signatories include philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky (MIT); cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol); climate scientist Michael E Mann (PSU); writer and environmentalist Bill McKibben (Middlebury College); historian of science Naomi Oreskes (Harvard); and moral philosopher Peter Singer (Princeton).
As one of the philosophers responsible for this open letter, along with my colleague Keith Horton (University of Wollongong, Australia), I wish to explain why we felt compelled to organize it and why the endorsement of many influential philosophers is important.
In addition to Chomsky and Singer, the list of prominent philosophers who have converged from various philosophical backgrounds and points of disagreement to endorse this letter include many of the most influential figures in contemporary moral and political philosophy.

Thinking about the real world
While it may be popular among certain politicians to malign academics as removed from the “real world,” the fact remains that academics by virtue of training and professional necessity are driven to distinguish valid argument and sound evidence from fallacy.
We are bound to reference current research, and to examine our data before making claims if we hope to be taken seriously by our peers. We have a pedagogical obligation to instill these same practices in our students. We also have a moral obligation to prepare them for responsible citizenship and careers.
Global warming is the most important moral issue of our time, and arguably the greatest existential threat that human beings, as a whole, have faced. So the response to climate change from philosophers should be no surprise.

Pope Francis, here visiting the US, has framed the world’s response to climate change and other environmental problems as a moral and ethical issue. Reuters 

Those most responsible for climate change are relatively few compared to the vast numbers of people who will be harmfully affected. Indeed, climate change will, in one way or another, impact all life on Earth.
If we fail to decisively address the problem now, warming may escalate in a relatively short time beyond the point which human beings can reasonably be expected to cope, given the nature of reinforcing feedback effects.
The moral implications are enormous, and this letter represents the closest we have to a consensus statement from the world’s preeminent professional ethicists on some of the moral obligations industrial nations, and their leaders, have to global communities, future generations, and fellow species. The letter begins:

Some issues are of such ethical magnitude that being on the correct side of history becomes a signifier of moral character for generations to come. Global warming is such an issue. Indigenous peoples and the developing world are least responsible for climate change, least able to adapt to it, and most vulnerable to its impacts. As the United Nations Climate Conference in Paris approaches, the leaders of the industrialized world shoulder a grave responsibility for the consequences of our current and past carbon emissions.

Importantly, the letter points out that even if current nonbinding pledges being offered by world leaders ahead of the conference are achieved, we remain on course to reach potentially catastrophic levels of warming by the end of this century. The letter continues:

This is profoundly shocking, given that any sacrifice involved in making those reductions is far overshadowed by the catastrophes we are likely to face if we do not: more extinctions of species and loss of ecosystems; increasing vulnerability to storm surges; more heatwaves; more intense precipitation; more climate related deaths and disease; more climate refugees; slower poverty reduction; less food security; and more conflicts worsened by these factors. Given such high stakes, our leaders ought to be mustering planet-wide mobilization, at all societal levels, to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degree Celsius.

It is increasingly obvious as we head to Paris that both industrialized and developing nations must make serious efforts to limit their greenhouse gas emissions beyond their current pledges. This is a requirement of physics.
It is unrealistic to expect most developing nations to meaningfully limit greenhouse gas emissions without binding pledges from industrialized nations to do so, as well as significant commitments to provide financial and technological assistance to poorer nations facing developmental challenges. This is a practical necessity and a requirement of ethics.

Ethical thinking
At its most fundamental level, thinking ethically means taking the interests of others seriously enough to recognize when our actions and omissions must be justified to them.
As individuals, our instincts too often drive us toward self-interest. Consequently, acting ethically beyond the circle of our immediate relations – that is, those we perceive most capable of reciprocating both harms and benefits – is difficult.
Still, the history of our species teaches that humanity as a whole benefits most when we are able to put narrow self-interest aside, and make an ethical turn in our thinking and behavior.
Now, faced with climate change the next great ethical turn in our thinking and behavior can’t come soon enough. We will make progress in addressing climate change when, and if, we begin taking the lessons of morality seriously.