• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Haiti and Climate Change: What’s the Real Problem?

    While some people are trying to determine if Pat Robertson or Danny Glover made the more egregious comment on the cause of the earthquake in Haiti (was it a deal with the Devil or failures in Copenhagen), others are getting to the root of the problem: Haiti is very poor and does not have the resources or infrastructure to prevent damage, react properly to a natural disaster or rebuild after the damage has been done. And proposed environmental solutions, both here and internationally, will do much more to hurt the world’s poor than to help them.

    New York Times columnist David Brooks writes, “This is not a natural disaster story. This is a poverty story. It’s a story about poorly constructed buildings, bad infrastructure and terrible public services.” Phelim McAleer makes similar points here. And there’s evidence to support it says George Mason economist Don Boudreaux:

    Empirical research reveals that Mr. Brooks is correct. For example, in a 2005 paper, economist Matthew Kahn (now teaching at UCLA) found that, while rich countries experience just as many natural disasters as do poor countries, persons in rich countries are less likely than are persons in poor countries to die from such disasters. Specifically, a country of 100 million people with a per-capita income of $8,000 will experience about 530 fewer deaths from natural disasters each year than will a country with the same population but where per-capita income is only $2,000. Raise the per-capita income from $8,000 to $14,000 and the annual expected death toll from natural disasters falls by another 233 persons.”

    This isn’t a new phenomenon. In 2001, Jonah Goldberg provided several examples of how natural disasters affected wealthy areas versus how they affected poor ones: “For example, on December 7, 1988, there was an earthquake in Armenia that killed 28,854 people. It recorded 6.9 on the Richter scale. Less than a year later there was an earthquake in San Francisco and Oakland. It was a 7.1 on the Richter scale, but it claimed 63 casualties. About seven months later there was a quake near Rasht, Iran, scoring six tenths of a point higher, at 7.7. But that earthquake killed 50,000 people. You can do the same thing for almost any disaster — hurricanes, cyclones, etc. — the same trend will hold up. Natural disasters hurt poor people because poor people live in terrible conditions.”

    The bigger problem is environmental policies designed to prevent natural disasters from occurring simply cannot do so. These costly regulations would, in actuality, have very little effect on the temperature whatsoever. Programs like a cap and trade system or an international treaty to reduce CO2 not only destroys wealth but also allocates resources away from more efficient uses.

    Natural disasters will occur with or without global warming and their frequency or intensity cannot be linked to global warming. The answer to natural disasters is not to try to change the temperature but rather focus on increasing economic growth. Markets and economic growth will lead to stronger houses with solid floors and roofs, and paved roads with more accessibility. Countries and cities can devote resources to building better levees, rebuilding sand dunes and upgrading buildings to withstand damage.

    It’s no wonder a global pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen failed miserably. Bjorn Lomborg writes in the Washington Post: “First, developing nations have no intention of letting the developed world force them to stop using carbon-emitting fuels. They are understandably wary of any policy that might curtail the domestic economic growth that is allowing their populations to clamber out of poverty. And that is precisely what drastically reducing their carbon emissions would do.”

    To prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future, we should allow countries to develop rather than implementing policies that would prohibit them to do so.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to Haiti and Climate Change: What’s the Real Problem?

    1. Dan Pangburn says:

      The on-going temperature decline trend was predicted.

      All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted by a simple model using the first law of thermodynamics and the time-integral (same as ‘running total’ if time steps are equal) of sunspot count. The standard deviation of concurrent measured minus predicted temperatures since 1900 is 0.064 C. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Climate change is natural.

      The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&…. (One of the discoveries made during this research was the effective sea surface temperature oscillation. The integral of the PDO Index http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest indicates a substantial measure of sea surface temperatures, as does ENSO 3.4, but not all so replace all references to PDO with ESST for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).

      This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses did.

      The Argo float ocean temperature measurements show that global warming stopped in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_… ).

    2. Ed Elberson says:

      Nick, right on, right on!

    3. L., CA says:

      First, I would recommend reading Jerod Diamond's book, "Collapse." Haiti has been on the brink ecologically for a long while and without all aide it has received befire this tragedy would have probably succumbed by now. It is not about the change in climate, but misuse of materials according to its particular culture (as with many nations including ours–the problem is within them) And, earthquakes are well outside the control of any recommmendations by the IPCC!

      Second, I really despise the use of terms "rich" nations and "poor" nations because current connotations are quite negative and demonizing, and really meaningless in the long run. Who knows what disastrous tipping point awates any nation? As Diamond points out–it's the interplay of a number of factors, including a populations' decisions about how we CHOOSE to be governed–which directly affects the use and distribution of consumable materials and resources.

    4. Ron Welge Mo. says:

      As much mumbo-jumbo that has been spued from the mouths of people agout globel-warming, it's amazing to me that there are so many idiots think man can do enything to control our weather, good or bad. It's strange no one has thought of who controls, and has put it in motion. Want to take a guess?

    5. SPURWING PLOVER says:

      Please DANNY GLOVER remove your foot from your mouth your babbling again

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×