Comments due by Sept. 23, 2017
Hurricane Harvey,
followed quickly by Irma, left in its wake upended lives and enormous
property damage, estimated by some at $150-180 billion. But the storms
that pummeled Texas and Florida also raise deep questions about America’s
economic system and politics.
NEW YORK – Hurricane Harvey has left in
its wake upended lives and enormous property damage, estimated by some at
$150-180 billion. But the rains that inundated the Texas coast for the better
part of a week, and the hurricane that is about to hit South Florida, also
raise deep questions about the United States’ economic system and politics. It is
ironic, of course, that an event so related to climate change would occur in a
state that is home to so many climate-change deniers – and where the economy
depends so heavily on the fossil fuels that drive global warming. Of course, no
particular climate event can be directly related to the increase in greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. But scientists have long predicted that such increases
would boost not only average temperatures, but also weather variability – and
especially the occurrence of extreme events such as Hurricane Harvey. As the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded several years ago, “There is evidence
that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including
increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.” Astrophysicist
Adam Frank succinctly explained: “greater warmth means more moisture in the
air which means stronger precipitation.”1
To be sure, Houston and Texas could not have
done much by themselves about the increase in greenhouse gases, though they
could have taken a more active role in pushing for strong climate policies. But
local and state authorities could have done a far better job preparing for such
events, which hit the area with some frequency.
In responding to the hurricane – and in
funding some of the repair – everyone turns to government, just as they did in
the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis. Again, it is ironic that this is now
occurring in a part of the country where government and collective action are
so frequently rebuked. It was no less ironic when the titans of US banking,
having preached the neoliberal gospel of downsizing government and eliminating
regulations that proscribed some of their most dangerous and anti-social
activities, turned to government in their moment of need.
There is an obvious lesson to be learned from
such episodes: markets on their own are incapable of providing the protection
that societies need. When markets fail, as they often do, collective action
becomes imperative.
And, as with financial crises, there is a need
for preventive collective action to mitigate the impact of climate change. That
means ensuring that buildings and infrastructure are constructed to withstand
extreme events, and are not located in areas that are most vulnerable to severe
damage. It also means protecting environmental systems, particularly wetlands,
which can play an important role in absorbing the impact of storms. It means
eliminating the risk that a natural disaster could lead to the discharge of
dangerous chemicals, as happened in Houston. And it means having in place
adequate response plans, including for evacuation.
Effective government
investments and strong regulations are needed to ensure each of these outcomes,
regardless of the prevailing political culture in Texas and elsewhere. Without
adequate regulations, individuals and firms have no incentive to take adequate
precautions, because they know that much of the cost of extreme events will be
borne by others. Without adequate public planning and
regulation, including of the environment, flooding will be worse. Without
disaster planning and adequate funding, any city can be caught in the dilemma
in which Houston found itself: if it does not order an evacuation, many will
die; but if it does order an evacuation, people will die in the ensuing chaos,
and snarled traffic will prevent people from getting out.
America and the world are paying a high price
for devotion to the extreme anti-government ideology embraced by President
Donald Trump and his Republican Party. The world is paying, because cumulative
US greenhouse-gas emissions are greater than those from any other country; even
today, the US is one of the world’s leaders in per capita greenhouse-gas
emissions. But America is paying a high price as well: other countries, even
poor developing countries, like Haiti and Ecuador, seem to have learned (often
at great expense and only after some huge calamities) how to manage natural
disasters better.
After the destruction of New Orleans by
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the shutdown of much of New York City by Sandy in
2012, the devastation wrought on Texas by Harvey, and now the prospect of Irma
pummeling Florida, the US can and should do better. It has the resources and
skills to analyze these complex events and their consequences, and to formulate
and implement regulations and investment programs that mitigate the adverse
effects on lives and property.
What America doesn’t have is a coherent view
of government by those on the right, who, working with special interests that
benefit from their extreme policies, continue to speak out of both sides of
their mouth. Before a crisis, they resist regulations and oppose government
investment and planning; afterwards, they demand – and receive – billions of
dollars to compensate them for their losses, even those that could easily have
been prevented.
One can only hope that America, and other
countries, will not need more natural persuasion before taking to heart the
lessons of Hurricane Harvey.
DeShawn McLeod
ReplyDeletePreparation and prevention are distinct motifs in the economics of natural disasters – just like the crux of sustainable economics, prescribing preventional measures to curb capitalism from devouring earth’s resources. Precautionary measures require much more capital to integrate sustainable resource and energy consumption methods. High capital costs of “unnecessary” infrastructure, to the private sector, are a deterrent for corporations with only their bottom line in mind – not humanity’s. What are our solutions to this dilemma? Possibly tax incentives or penalties if business owners comply (or not) with orders to align their business with sustainability.
This article also brings up the uncomfortable and unfortunate idea that politics affects the efficiency of handling natural disasters in the U.S. For example, the government’s poor execution of handling Hurricane Katrina and checkpoints fixed to find illegal immigrants during evacuations of, the most current, Hurricane Harvey. The wealth that America has amassed is accessed by a handful compared to the millions that experience underwhelming standards of living because of income equality and poor upward mobility. It is a trend that natural disasters inflicted in areas, with a large minority population, have poor execution in minimizing fatalities and assisting those displaced by this event.
Olivia Gonzalez
ReplyDeleteThis article addresses some very interesting points that have been commonly discussed in the media as of late. The four major hurricanes that have hit, or are approaching, American coast lines should be a huge eye opener for the American government. The current administration has popularly denied or minimized the severity of climate change and has made efforts to remove the United States from the international climate discussion. These hurricanes, the destruction they have caused, and the lives they have taken, are a troubling indication of the status of the environment.
Also addressed in this piece is that the U.S. is a major contributor to the state of the environment. We are one of the world’s leaders in greenhouse gas emissions due to our industries. Hopefully, a lesson can be learned from these environmental devastations: the earth is hurting and America must join the environmental conservation conversation.
Andresious Cyprianos
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article i couldn't help but make contrasts with probably one of the greatest economist rivalries of the 20th century, Keynes Vs. Hayek. One(Keynes) argued for the need of government intervention in times of need while the other(Hayek) believed that "human animal spirits" would act as stabilizers and hence government would be necessary. While both were definitely right for different period of time, with our current global warming situation it would be deemed extremely necessary for government intervention.
Simple market failure is what has lead to this stage of agonizing ecological system conditions. The overproduction of goods with negative externalities to our environment is what has largely lead to these problems. From the article the issue of lack of regulations over the production of greenhouse gases is brought up a number of times, and just like any externality the front-runner in correcting this would and should be the government.In the US i particular the inconsistency in party views is certainly turning out to be a major hindrance for the country. Having the highest per capita for greenhouse emissions should certainly be a worry for the government but the lack of acknowledgement can definitely be link not necessarily to the recent natural disasters to hit America but the various climate change incidents elsewhere.
Brian DelVecchio
ReplyDeleteSomething that this article makes me think about is the fact that our economy is built greatly, but based on the assumption that major calamity does not happen. Our economy runs in such a way that the status quo is generally retained. It cycles through itself and has highs and lows, but it is not built well for extremes such as natural disaster. When massive events such as hurricanes or earthquakes happen, there is a lot of damage, and a lot of lost utility. These should be recognized as bad things but the economy only knows how to incorporate it into the GDP after the damage has already been done. For this reason, and the fact that the economy does not need to change much on a day to day basis, measures to prevent or mitigate the unpredictable tragedies are not taken but people, businesses, or the government.
YANG Peidong
ReplyDeleteThere is no denying that extreme climate change is exerting increasingly profound influence on the whole world, including America, the most developed country in the planet. However, due to political conflicts and interests, it seems that American administration, especially the Trump administartion, tend to undergrade or even ignore the influence of climate change on the society. Without adequate regulations and effective government supervisions, business activities which may do harm to environment, such as exploding oil and burning coals, will never control their progress by themselves. Therefore, it is imperative to enhance government intervention and regulation on scoial activities which are related to the climate chnages.
The Trump administartion claims to pull out of the Paris agreement in order to boost the domestic economy despite the pressure from other countries. In view of the economic development in the long term, this decision is definitely absurd and unreasonable, because the calamities caused by the occurence of extreme climate events, such as increasingly frequent and severe hurricans, will not only bring a wreck to the residents but also the local economy. These climate disasters will make our country unsafe and unstable to live, not mention to make fincial investments.
Nia Oxley
ReplyDeleteThere were some excellent points raised in this article. For instance, I most definitely agree that the general stance that Houston and other surrounding parts of Texas take on environment control and climate change is very ironic due to the recent events that have taken place. In fact, I was having a conversation with my father the other day about this very phenomenon. He said that in order to prevent this devastation, the legislature in these parts of the country need to implement preventative measures. Him, being an architect, went on to list the in housing safety codes that need to be updated and regulated, in order for these things to start becoming more of a rarity. I also feel that in order for these regulations to be properly implemented, allowance of flexibility on the government budget must be changed. More spending must go towards preventative planning for these natural occurrences.
Rebecca McMann
ReplyDeleteBy this point you would think that AMerica could at least come together and agree that we need some sort of government and that climate change is real. People selfishly do not want to change their daily routines or admit that they are a problem so they refuse to look at what's happening right at home. It is bad enough that the majority of Americans in areas such as Texas do not want to bother helping outside nations, but to not even want to plan at home is even more foolish. After the records and news coverage and destruction of past hurricanes it is just foolish to put it nicely to not at least make a plan for the potential risk of that problem making it to your front door. The fact that people say no government and then turn around and ask for help, not even ask, demand it, and all of a sudden think the government is there for help and is needed because they need it personally is no surprise. People are extremely selfish and until it hits home they won't think it is an issue. Texas and surrounding areas should have by default an evacuation plan, state level enforced building regulations, precautions period. It is just ridiculous to think you are untouchable in this world and this present administration is no help at all. Even if you do not believe climate change is as a vital problem as it is you should at least want to take enough responsibility to make sure you are protected and prepared if there is ever an issue. No matter what areas are being hit hard and it is because of human actions of taking no action to help the world that things are only getting worse. Hopefully one day people can take the cover off their eyes and wake up to see what's happening. Hopefully as well this is before a catastrophic storm comes plowing through taking lives with it. It is not a question to why should you take on environmental problems and work on fixing them. It is a fact that you should because we live here, doesn't it seem plausible to take care of where you live? That sounds pretty basic knowledge to me.
Alison Zhabotinskiy
ReplyDeleteReading through this article, there were many very interesting and important points made. Looking at the size of the United States, its government, and its advancements beyond many other nations, even much smaller countries, it would seem that the US would be much more involved with something as vital as climate change. Especially after there has been definitive research made about climate change, and our society’s effect on the atmosphere. At this point with so many natural disasters that have occurred throughout the United States and throughout the world, with increased knowledge of climate change, increased research and data that shows the influences of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, there should be no denying in that there is a tremendous issue at hand, and that preventative actions should be taken in order to protect people and preserve land. Though natural disasters are inevitable, there are actions that can be taken in order to plan for and provide safety to people in any situation, and that there is a way for the government to outline and budget for proper safety measures, infrastructure, and also implementing regulations to stop companies from causing so much damage to the environment, which just hurts everyone and everything in the long-run.
Brandon Macker-Silva
ReplyDeleteThis article approaches the topic of natural disasters and climate change from a very leftist perspective, which I happen to agree with. Unfortunately for those that share these beliefs (most developed countries' leaders), the current administration is unwilling to accept the long-standing evidence that points to the real dangers that climate change poses for our collective future.
In recent years, federal environmental regulations have been strict in order to help preserve natural resources and slow climate change. However, the Trump administration has relaxed, or entirely eliminated, many of those protections and the EPA, under his direction, has been slow to enforce many policies. From pushing through the approval for the construction of the controversial Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines to wheeling back the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, this administration has been no friend to the environment.
The environmental, fiscal, and humanitarian impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma will be visible in the lives of Texas and Florida residents for quite some time. Trump says that he wants to create jobs for workers (i.e. coal miners) in order to boost the economy and return its livelihood to that population; however, I argue that this does more harm than good. In today's world, coal and oil industries have less and less of a place as alternative energy sources are being improved and refined. In order to move forward, different forms of labor must be made available to boost the economy and provide jobs for these families. Rolling back environmental regulations and attempting to reboot defunct industries is the wrong way to get the job done. The costly measures taken to remedy the environmental impacts of Trump's policies, not to mention the cost of more natural disaster relief, will not be worth the meager amount of revenue contributed to the economy by these industries. The way is forward, not backward. With the right policies and leadership, the United States could become a global leader in investment in renewable energy sources and environmental protection regulations.
Without progressive economic policies and regulations that protect the environment, the continued depletion of our natural resources, clean water and air supplies, and contamination of the ozone layer will greenhouse gases will ultimately have a grave economic impact on not only the United States, but in countries all over the world. The amount of pollution in the ecosystem today has far surpassed the environment's carrying capacity, thus allowing catastrophic imbalances to develop and worsen over time.
ReplyDeleteThose opposed to large federal government involvement in regulating the proper use of our natural resources should consider how much good would come from leaving it up to the states. Without blanket regulations to be enforced in all parts of the country, many industries would slip under the wire and take advantage of inconsistent enforcement. This would ultimately harm the environment more in some states in the beginning; however, it would soon trickle throughout the rest of the country. Those who oppose the involvement of the federal government in imposing strict regulations DO often come to them for aid after a natural disaster (whose effects are intensified by the irresponsible consumption of natural resources). This is due to the inability of state governments to readily prepare their communities for the inevitability of natural disasters in certain parts of the country. Some do not believe in the effects of climate change, and this may be a deterrent in spending money from their budgets on emergency preparation and developing an EAP (emergency action plan). Then, with nowhere else to turn, they reach out to the Federal Government to bail them out with relief aid appropriated from congress in an emergency spending bill. If proper steps were taken, and ideas about the realities of climate change were to become true for more "non-believers", natural disasters would not be as severe and the emergency response from local and state governments could be much more strategic, efficient, and effective.
Unfortunately, with the attitude that the current administration has toward environmental policy, the future is looking pretty grim for ecological economists. The Trump White House wants to grow the economy, but that will not be possible because with the amount of pollution the industries they are backing will produce, the growth of the economy will diminish. We need robust environmental regulations to create sustainable economic growth that agrees with the environment's abilities to combat pollutants.
ReplyDeleteJordi Isidor
ReplyDeleteThis post highlight some important aspects of the economy addressing the behavior of the environment before making chooses. In the post is really interested how you present that markets are “incapable of providing the protection that societies needs”. However, we should take some regulations to prevent this loses; but looking at how our country is run, is pretty easy to understand that not having this regulations is a way in which the economy creates and mantains jobs and activity. Let’s say than 100-180billion dollars were lose in florida and Houston because os the environment (Hurricanes) however these loses are going to be restate, creating jobs and economic activity. Although climate change it is a true phase, we cannot be 100% sure that humans have to do something with it, because accordingly to history this change on Earth have been happening.
Yunjia Guo
ReplyDeleteI agree with many points mentioned in the post. Our environmental condition and most of the preventive plans of natural disaster usually rely on the nation's action, the economic system and politics. Including the prevent action, action of facing disasters, and action of recovery, I believe that the US government and people can do much more. Japan,for example, as a country that facing earthquake very often has the capacity to prepare for furture earthquake and recover maturely. In Japanese daily life, they have regulations of very carefully recycle. Their buildings are made to overcome great earthquake, which are pretty much what mentioned in the post about the preventive collective action, ensuring the buildings and infrastucture conditions and having in place adequate response plans. My home country China also take Japan to rethink ourselves since we used to lost too much due to our insufficient preparation and prevention. Also I believe that certain actions require the governments and citizens to have a validation on each other and work together.
ZiXuan Song,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I found out most of the points here are reasonable. The environment situation and protection plan is not only the government and national actions, it belong to our all. The current economic system and polices are damaging the environment a lot. This is serious problem for citizens of the United States. Natural disaster is serious problem, however, I believe in the help with the citizens and maintaining orders of the government, we can all pass the problems. There are many ways for the government to do in order to prevent the damages from the natural disaster.
After reading the article, I agree with many of the points. Usually when a disaster does happen, Americans turn to the government hoping for a positive response and some type of assistance to fix everything. This is mainly due to the power that is held and the abundance of resources that they have.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I was younger, climate change and fossil fuel conversations were more than frequent in conversations everywhere. As of recently, the government has decided to let those important conversation go on the back burner. This is disappointing because it's something that everyone should be more aware of not only to save the environment but, to protect our citizens from natural disasters such as the recent ones. When the climate is considered to be on decline, everything is unpredictable. That's a huge risk that the government has taken due to the severity of the climate. Over the past couple of months, we have had some of the worst hurricanes that we have ever seen. For example, Puerto Rico was almost completely wiped out due to the weather. If that is not an eye opener for the government to address issues in the environment, they need to take it as one.
However, it is not just the government's job to help with improving climate change. This should be a wake up call to everyone about the place we live. I do think that it is up to the government to make it a public concern to raise awareness and combat the situation the best that we can.
The article made a great point about who is in office as of right now and how that can easily affect the way we are doing things. Since the hurricanes hit, I was expecting to hear more conversations on how we are going to save our earth but, again, it's not being made into a priority. I agree that there needs to be some type of planning happening in order to get a solution. I'm not sure why the environment has been put on the back burner but, the recent disasters has shown the consequences of those actions.
I could not agree more with this article. It seems that the old saying of "you don't understand until it happens to you" applies here. People act selfishly and are ignorant to many things until it involves them directly. I feel that this has been a recurring theme among this new administration. Ignorance is bliss. People need to educate themselves in order to become less bias and more level headed about issues that effect our country. We must place an importance on preparing ourselves for possible natural disasters. There has been a significant increase in natural disasters due to our greenhouse gas emissions and, even if the country begins to change their ways, we will see the negative impact of this in the form of natural disasters for many years to come. This is only the beginning. If this was not a wake up call for Texas, then I don't know what is. We need to not only implicate relief efforts in the case that this happens again, but also put into place preventative measures. Laws need to be passed to encourage more environmentally-friendly practices. People must tell representatives that this is a topic they care about or else we will continue to experience these tragedies.
ReplyDelete