Defending against a Tsunami

Interesting editorial in the Wall Street Opinion Journal: bq. A Great Natural Disaster Prosperity is the best defense against a tsunami. bq. The world's thoughts are with the victims of the tsunamis that swept across South Asia Sunday, killing at least 23,000 and leaving millions homeless. In the coming weeks and months, the priority must be to render the survivors every possible assistance. The response so far has been admirably swift. bq. One might think that a disaster of this scale would transcend normal national or political considerations. But in the world of environmental zealotry, even an event such as this is seen as an opportunity to press the agenda. Thus, the source of the South Asian tsunami is being located in global warming. bq. In an interview with the Independent newspaper in Britain, Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "No one can ignore the relentless increase in extreme weather events and so-called natural disasters, which in reality are no more natural than a plastic Christmas tree." Speaking to the same newspaper, Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper pressed the argument home: "Here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions." It is perhaps appropriate that the strongest, recent refutation to such feverish assertions may be found in Michael Crichton's new thriller--also about environmental extremists, a tsunami and the myths of global warming. Yadda yadda yadda -- but there is more, much much more: bq. People prone to hysteria often become further unhinged in the face of a great disaster, and that may explain these remarkable comments on the tsunami disaster. Still, these comments by the movement's leadership may serve as a case study of how such imaginings work their way into public discussion of the environment. That is all the more reason to come to grips with the real causes of calamities such as this. bq. Geologists say that groups of giant earthquakes hit Sumatra every 230 years or so. The last quakes there were in 1797 and 1833--and surely not even Greenpeace would blame those on greenhouse gases -- and so Sunday's latest quake was more or less on schedule. (Emphasis mine) And now the defence: bq. It is preposterous to blame the inexorable forces of nature on the development of industry and infrastructures of modern society. The more sensible response to natural disasters is to improve forecasting, put in place efficient communications and evacuation procedures and, should the worst arrive, conduct relief efforts and rebuild what nature has destroyed. Those cautionary measures, as is now clear, cost money. The national income necessary to afford them is made possible only by economic growth of the sort too many of environmentalists retard with their policy extremism. Emphasis mine again -- a few more paragraphs bq. Rich countries suffer fewer fatalities from natural disasters because their prosperity has allowed them to create better protective measures. Consider the 41,000 death toll in last December's earthquake in Iran compared with the 63 who died when a slightly stronger earthquake hit San Francisco in 1989. bq. The principal victims of the tidal waves in Sri Lanka and elsewhere Sunday were the poor people living in coastal shanty towns. The wealthier countries around the Pacific Rim have an established early-warning system against tsunamis, while none currently exists in South Asia. Developing countries that have resisted the Kyoto climate-change protocols have done so from fear that it will suppress their economic growth. These countries deserve an answer from the proponents of those standards. How are they supposed to pay for such protection amid measures that are suppressing global economic growth? bq. As we mourn the loss of life and unite to help the survivors rebuild their lives and communities, let's also bear in mind that the best long-term help is an economic environment that allows these nations to put in place better manmade defenses against future depredations from nature. Enviros are trying to stop many nations from continuing their efforts to develop while totally ignoring other nations who are committing great acts of environmental pollution (China and India). It is through global free trade and development that these poorer nations can elevate the the lifestyle of their citizens to a more comfortable one. Sometimes it seems that the left and the environmentalists believe that there is a fixed pool of currency and that the richer nations are hoarding it and in order to achieve social justice, this pool needs to be re-distributed. This is plain outright wrong. Money can be created and destroyed. The poorer nations can create their own wealth if their citizens are given the oppertunity... Let's give them this chance.