The Best Way to Deal with Natural Disasters

Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

When disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the 7.0 earthquake in Haiti strike, the immediate call is for disaster relief to the victims, along with pleas/demands for continuing aid to "rebuild infrastructure," as though government spending to shore up leaky boats were not only a viable long-term approach (questionable assumption at best), but ~the only~ viable long-term approach.

Jim Peron wrote a very good piece for The Freeman, and I reproduce it below, along with URL information for The Freeman web site. He points out that the single best approach to mitigating natural disaster is to allow the free market to work, on an ongoing basis ~before~ such disasters hit, let alone when they strike.


P.S. These folks (The Foundation for Economic Education) are ~well~ worth supporting. Please consider giving them your contributions. Their monthly magazine is chock full of good stuff.


Wealth, Poverty, and Natural Disasters

Posted By James Peron On January 18, 2010 (12:01 am) In Guest Column, Headline

The earthquake in Haiti was a magnitude of 7.0. According to Wikipedia, the 1989 Loma Prieta quake in San Francisco was either 7.0 or 6.9 depending on which scale is used. In other words, the intensities were fairly similar. Haiti is devastated. If the New York Times is correct, the death toll could be in the tens of thousands. The death toll in the 1989 quake was 63, if you include indirect deaths due the quake.

The difference is wealth. San Francisco is one of the wealthiest areas in our part of the world, while Haiti is the poorest. Poverty makes natural disasters worse. Wealth mitigates natural disasters. You would think that those who worry about the poor of the world would promote policies that increase wealth. Instead, they push policies that restrain wealth creation, and they do it intentionally and knowing it will restrain wealth creation.

The Heinrich Böll Foundation, an affiliate of the German Green Party, issued a report that referred to wealth areas, like San Francisco, as being populated by “over-consumers.” On the other hand, poor areas like Haiti were called “under-consumers.” But that is a misnomer since the report writers also make clear that in their ideal centrally planned paradise the “under-consumers are not to catch up with the over-consumers.” They indicate that in the name of equality the over-consumers must have their wealth taken from them. They very explicitly attack those who would try to help develop the poor nations of the world because such people “work at lifting the threshold—rather than lowering or modifying the roof…. Poverty alleviation, in other words, cannot be separated from wealth alleviation.”

The truth is that wealthy people can bear the burdens of the worst Mother Nature throws at us. I know the Greens want us all to live in tune with nature, but Mother Nature has no feelings, no compassion, and is quite happy to turn you into fertilizer. Condemn materialism and wealth all you want, but it saves lives. Sure, if you hate humans, then you won’t care. But whatever problems wealth creation is claimed to cause, they pale in comparison to the problems that accompany poverty.

The quake in Haiti inflicted massive death because poverty magnifies the evil that comes with natural disasters. The San Francisco quake led to few deaths, even with a similar magnitude, because the area is productive and wealthy. And, many of the deaths that did happen were because of failed government policies. For instance, the collapse of the Cypress Freeway, which killed 42, was built by the state on a landfill that tends to liquefy during an earthquake. That liquefaction, combined with the state’s failure to reinforce known flaws in the highway, directly led to the collapse and the deaths.

Similarly, the other major concentration of destruction was in San Francisco’s Marina District. The Marina District was the site of the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition, which was built by the city on mud flats and wetlands. After the Exposition ended the city then sold the property to developers for housing. It was here that seven buildings collapsed and 63 more were damaged so severely that they had to be torn down. Four died in the Marina District.

The disaster in New Orleans was a similar example. When the government-maintained dikes failed during hurricane Katrina, the city was flooded. The people who suffered were the poor, especially the poor who relied on government mass transit to evacuate them. The better-off fled in their cars. But a huge percentage of citizens didn’t own cars. Randal O’Toole wrote:

“We have heard that 60 percent of New Orleans residents are black, but it has been little noted that a third of those black families do not own a car — nor do 15 percent of white families. It is these people who were left behind when those with cars evacuated.”

O’Toole notes that in previous years, when wealth was lower in the country, death rates from hurricanes were higher. When Galveston was hit by a hurricane in 1900, people couldn’t escape in time because autos didn’t exist. Now major cities can evacuate before a hurricane arrives because people have cars. Even mass transit works better to evacuate people when more people own cars since it is used to evacuate far more manageable numbers.

Policies that destroy wealth creation today mean a poorer world tomorrow, and poverty — not wealth — exacerbates disaster.

Article taken from The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty -

URL to article:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's somewhat off about the hurricanes. It's not necessarily having the ability to escape so much as having the advanced warning to escape. In 1900, the first notice of a hurricane was probably the first squall lines to cross onto land. At best, people knew a storm was "out there" but had no way of knowing where it would make landfall.

Today's predictive capacity is much better--it's improved even in the last twenty years or so. There is still a lot of room for improvement, but today's forecasters have the ability to predict a hurricane's path over the next twenty four hours fairly accurately, and predict with less accuracy, but within known limits fairly reliably, several days out the general areas threatened by the storms.

Of course, this is additional reinforcement for the main point of the article. And better forecasting does not help if a country is poor or unable to organize an evacuation in time. Hurricane Mitch was a good example of this.

Jeffrey S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now