EVIDENCE BASED ARGUMENT

Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines with devastating and deadly effect a few days ago, is overshadowing the UN climate summit in Warsaw. A group of delegates along with some climate campaigners have been quick to suggest that global warming was to blame for the disaster and catastrophe that is unfolding. Nothing, though, could be further from the truth.

The Atlantic hurricane season, which many forecasters predicted would be more active in 2013 than normal, has turned out to be inaccurate. Take a closer inspection of the cyclones and tropical storms this year and an observer would easily conclude that something quite remarkable has happened. For the first time in 45 years, no major hurricane made landfall. This year, too, has been marked by the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, and the first since 1994 when no major hurricane formed. Indeed, U.S. weather experts have confirmed that 2013 has been one of the weakest hurricane seasons since modern record-keeping began some 50 years ago. Paradoxically, then, if the alleged cause, global warming, has inhibited hurricanes on one side of the world how has it managed to trigger typhoons on the other side?

Empirical evidence is important here. Whilst climate activists claim that tropical cyclone activity (including the frequency and intensity of typhoons) has increased as the global temperature has gone up, scientific observations published in many journals show that despite the moderate warming during the 20th century, the number of tropical cyclones making landfall in the Philippines did not increase and has remained unchanged for more than 100 years.

Just hours before the typhoon hit the Philippines, authorities moved almost 1 million people to evacuation centres. Sadly, many of these structures collapsed when the tropical storm hit coastal towns and villages. As many as 10,000 people, including 4,000 children, have been killed. The death toll could yet be much higher. Much of the initial destruction that killed so many was caused by winds blowing at 235 kilometres per hour. In retrospect, however, it didn’t really have to be that way.

A superstorm of similar magnitude, Cyclone Yasi, hit Queensland, Australia, in February 2011. The cyclone hit Queensland with an eye of 100km in diameter and wind speeds of up to 285km/h. Crucially, however, local disaster management plans had been implemented long in advance. Evacuation, including that of hospitals, was completed more than four hours before the cyclone struck. Because Australia is an advanced and prosperous nation that can afford to implement highly effective disaster warning systems, not a single person died as a result of this destructive cyclone.

Many people around the world who are exposed and susceptible to natural hazards are increasingly relying on the effectiveness of warning systems. Disaster warning systems are most effective for natural catastrophes that develop gradually and relatively slowly, such as floods or tropical cyclones. Just two months ago, a fierce and ruthless cyclone ripped along India’s east coast. It only killed 25 people as millions of people were evacuated in advance of the tropical cyclone, minimising greatly the number of fatalities. 14 years earlier, more than 10,000 people were killed in a similar cyclone that arrived without much warning.

Even some poor countries known for their vulnerability to cyclones have learnt how to prepare for the recurrent threat and have succeeded in significantly reducing cyclone-related deaths. Bangladesh is one such example. The two deadliest cyclones in Bangladesh’s history occurred in 1970 and 1991, killing 500,000 and 140,000 people respectively. In the last two decades, Bangladesh has introduced better warning systems that have helped to substantially reduce deaths and injuries from cyclones. In 2007, for instance, Bangladesh suffered a severe cyclone that claimed the lives of 4,234 people, a 100-fold reduction compared with the devastating cyclone that hit the country in 1970.

Research carried out by the eminent US scientist, Indur Goklany, with his findings published and documented in numerous papers, states that the average annual deaths and death rates from all extreme weather events has declined by more than 90 per cent since 1920. This decline occurred despite a vast increase in the population at risk and more complete coverage of extreme weather events. Goklany also shows that, globally, the number of deaths and death rates due to storms – including hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes and typhoons – have declined by 47 per cent and 70 per cent respectively since the 1970s.

Economic development and technological advancement has allowed many countries to become increasingly better at coping with and adapting to the effects of extreme weather events. Goklany highlights that many advocate the spending of trillions of dollars to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases, in part to forestall hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming. But, as he says, spending even a fraction of such sums on the numerous higher priority health and safety problems plaguing humanity would provide greater returns for human well-being.