Its report contends that "in 1998 natural disasters created more ‘refugees’ than wars and conflict." To arrive at the total of 25 million "refugees," the authors lump declining soil fertility and deforestation together with weather catastrophes. Although it is alleged that deforestation contributes to the buildup of greenhouse gases, no one has argued that climate change leads to a reduction in the fertility of soil or to the loss of forests. Quite the contrary, an increase in CO₂ has been and will continue to promote growth of trees while a longer growing season will also expand forests. Consequently blaming climate change for all those refugees is untenable.

In presenting the report, Dr. Astrid Heiberg, president of the IFRC, claims that the combination of global warming and increasing poverty is producing a new scale of catastrophe. Poverty certainly makes people more vulnerable to natural disasters, whether they be earthquakes or weather-related. Rather than increasing, however, poverty has been declining. For three decades, world incomes have been rising and the number of people considered absolutely poor worldwide has fallen. Only in Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in parts of war-torn Africa have living standards declined.

Dr. Heiberg goes on to report that the number of people needing the Red Cross and Red Crescent’s assistance has increased hugely as a result of floods and earthquakes. Perhaps I missed it, but I haven’t yet heard anyone, including Vice President Gore, claim that greenhouse gases cause earthquakes. Flood damage does stem from above average rainfall, but humans often compound it by building on floodplains. Deforestation, poor housing practices, and a failure to prepare for abnormal precipitation cause the harm, not an hypothesized global warming. Even the IFRC report admits that the deforestation of the Yangtze basin caused the floods in China last year.

The vulnerability of the poor makes it vital that the industrialized countries do nothing to reduce growth in developing countries. As the report points out, 96 percent of all deaths from natural disasters occur in those areas. Taking steps to meet the Kyoto Protocol would reduce energy use to the detriment of many Third World countries. They either rely on petroleum sales for their income or seek to expand the use of fossil fuels in order to improve the life styles of their people.

The report blames El Niño for the 1998 drought in Indonesia that led to huge man-made fires, which fouled the air throughout much of the region, dried up rice crops, produced food riots in Jakarta, and caused an 80 percent drop in the currency. Although much of the devaluation had other causes, the need to import rice helped push down the value of the Indonesian rupiah. These were tragic events, but they had nothing to do with global warming. Despite the efforts of some environmentalists to connect El Niño with climate change, history shows that this weather phenomenon dates back thousands of years.

The World Disasters Report also blames Hurricane Mitch, which it claims killed 21,000, on global warming. Less sensational accounts suggest that fewer than 10,000 died. Whatever the number, Mitch was a terrible storm, producing massive destruction and loss of life. It is important to keep in mind, nevertheless, that 1998 was far from an unusual year for hurricanes. Except for Mitch, it was a very quiet year. In fact, the number of intense hurricanes – those storms reaching a scale of 3, 4, or 5 – has actually gone down during the 1970s and the 1980s. Even taking into account Andrew (1992), which decimated Florida and Louisiana, killing 14 people, the four years between 1991 to 1994 were the quietest on record.

Focusing on global warming as a huge threat to mankind, the IFRC portrays a reputed danger to the "one-billion people [who] live in the world’s unplanned shantytowns in cities located above dangerous earthquake zones." Once more the relationship between earthquake zones and climate change escapes me. As noted above, however, the remedy for those poor souls who live in such conditions is more economic growth, the source of which is cheap and plentiful fossil fuels.

The IFRC publishes the World Disasters Report to raise funds. Whenever there is a major disaster somewhere, especially if it is well covered by the media, sympathetic donors flood the societies with funds. In the absence of a currently compelling catastrophe, the best strategy for relief organizations is to forecast major disasters that will be "super." The more calamitous the future, the more people are likely to give. This report performs that function well, using the specter of climate change to allege that the globe faces "super-disasters." The evidence for this position consists of reports on past disasters, many of which have nothing to do with climate.

Without doubt the Red Cross and Red Crescent are worthy organizations which do much good work. They rely almost solely on donations and it is, of course, desirable for these charities to raise money in order to be in a position to move quickly when the next disaster strikes. Of one thing they can be sure: there will be other major disasters, both manmade and natural. Thus it makes sense for those societies to employ whichever bandwagon, such as global warming, may bring them more gifts. Nevertheless, in the interests of honesty, they should not claim that the sky is falling, that is, that their statistics "provide more proof" of the role of global warming in causing catastrophes.

Many environmental organizations also rely on frightening numbers to energize their contributors, knowing that nothing attracts funds faster than disasters or prospective calamities. Whenever an organization that can gain by dire prospects makes dire predictions, however, people should hold onto their wallets. Charitable organizations, no matter how exemplary, must raise funds if they are to help the destitute and the victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes or earthquakes. Their propaganda should evoke skepticism.

Aid after the fact will always be necessary, but the best way to mitigate disasters is to insure that the infrastructure to prevent catastrophes is securely in place. Rich countries enjoy good roads, well-built structures, redundant food supplies, power, and water, all of which create a safer environment. The Loma Prieta earthquake that struck northern California in 1989, for example, measured 6.9 or the Richter scale and caused 67 deaths. The year before a quake of the same size leveled Armenia, a very poor region of the world. Huge numbers lost their homes and 25,000 to 45,000 died.

All steps that lower economic growth or reduce incomes make people more vulnerable to the inevitable natural disasters that routinely strike parts of the globe. The Kyoto Protocol would lower incomes and reduce growth for every country attempting to meet its goals. Even those poor countries exempt from the protocol’s limits would suffer through the loss of exports, since the industrialized world, made less prosperous by reductions in energy use, would be able to buy much less from them. Thus the entire globe would be made poorer and more vulnerable to diseases, earthquakes, storms, and floods.

We must continually remind ourselves that richer is safer, richer is healthier, and richer is cleaner. Opposing steps that would lower people’s living standards constitutes the most humane policy possible.

Reference:

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. http:///www.ifr.org/pubs/wdr.