Essays by Eric Worrall
The AFR vaguely claims that climate change is making weather-related disasters worse – but does not attempt to provide evidence to support this claim.
These 10 climate disasters caused $1.5 trillion in damage in just 5 years
Reuters
November 22, 2022 – 8:58 amInsurers and risk modeling experts say climate change has increased the cost of natural disasters, as rising seas and droughts increase frequency and severity of floods and wildfires.
The cost of the 10 most expensive events over the past decade adds up to more than $1 trillion ($1.5 trillion). They all happened in the last five years.
The biggest losses are often in wealthier countries with more expensive assets – Australia’s 2019-2020 bushfires ranked third on the list with a cost of $110 billion ($167 billion). However, developing countries like Pakistan, which suffered flooding this year with an estimated $40 billion in damage, also bore the brunt of extreme weather. This list was provided to Reuters by risk modeling firm RMS.
…
10 “climate disasters”:
- California wildfires (2017 to 2018) – 3 fires, $180 billion, $148.5 billion, $328.5 billion, 143 people died.
- Atlantic Hurricane Harvey $125 billion (88 people died), Irma $65 billion (134 people died), Maria $107 billion (4600 people died) (August to September 2017)
- Australian bushfires 2019-2020 – $110 billion (34 people died)
- Hurricane Ian – $75 billion (101 people died)
- Hurricane Ida – $75 billion (107 people died)
- Floods in Germany/Belgium 2021 $40 billion (230 people died)
- Floods in Pakistan 2022: $40 billion (1717 people died)
- 2019 Japanese typhoon 26.1 billion USD (85 people died)
- European heat wave 2022 €10 billion (1500 people died)
- US/Canada Heatwave 2021 $8.9 billion (1400 people died)
Interestingly, the AFR forgot to include cold-related deaths, far exceeding heat-related deaths. For example, In 2021 63,000 people will die of cold in the UK. It wouldn’t take much global warming to save tens of thousands of lives each winter, if that warming brought milder winters – and that’s only in the UK.
The AFR also fails to address the benefits of our fossil fuel-rich energy-rich civilization, such as better communications and satellite weather warnings that allow people to be evacuated. before major storms hit and stronger, storm-resistant homes, which has dramatically reduced the number of disaster deaths over the past century (see chart at top of page).
Are disaster costs increasing? By some metrics yes, but a naive measure of disaster costs doesn’t account for population growth, growing wealth (more expensive homes on the road to disaster), and other problems like Forest management is less common in recent decades contribute to the intensity of forest fires. A more detailed discussion of disaster costs is available here. My impression, once you take into account such factors, there is no evidence that climate change is contributing to the disaster.
Regardless of whether you agree with my statement about disaster costs or other points I’ve made, my biggest criticism of the AFR article is that they simply don’t present own analysis. How much of that $1.5 trillion is to blame on climate change, compared to natural storms that should have happened? It’s almost as if they want readers to assume that ALL costs are related to climate, which would be a complete absurdity.
Next time AFR, try informing your readers by providing some context.
Related
