Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The United Nations Office of Disaster Risk Reduction is so obscure they don’t even have their own ambassador. But according to a study, unless the UNDRR receives more money, disasters could soon claim a trillion dollars per year.
Revenge of the nerds: Disaster risk reduction and climate change
18 March 2021
‘It is time to inject some urgency into the DRR agenda.’
John H. Patterson
Humanitarian professional who has deployed to more than 25 countries and advises international organisations on issues including disaster risk reductionTopher L. McDougal
Development economist and Associate Professor of Economic Development at the University of San Diego’s Kroc School of Peace StudiesDisaster risk reduction, or DRR, has long been a pariah of the international development and humanitarian assistance worlds.
Floating in the ambiguous space between disaster response and economic development, DRR lacks both the immediacy of a humanitarian crisis and the allure of big-budget development projects. Preventing disasters and reducing hazard risks are a good idea and a wonderful talking point, but DRR has consistently failed to capture sustained attention and funding. For all the fervour over the “humanitarian to development nexus” or the “triple nexus” – joining up peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance, and development – DRR continues to be more of an afterthought than a central pillar of aid strategy.
Part of the problem is that DRR is just not very marketable. The UN’s humanitarian aid coordination arm, OCHA, can list Beyoncé and Forest Whitaker as collaborators; the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, has Angelina Jolie; and the UN Development Programme recently added Yemi Alade to a list of goodwill ambassadors that already included the likes of Padma Lakshmi and Antonio Banderas. The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, UNDRR, has none.
…
But if American cinema has taught us anything, it is that ignoring the nerds comes at a price – a big price. In a recent paper published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, we estimate that a 1-degree increase in global temperatures would require a near tripling in disaster response spending just to match the current level of humanitarian coverage, which is generally agreed to be insufficient. This means that – within 15 years – failing to properly prepare for the coming impacts of climate change could lead to an annual global disaster response bill topping $1 trillion (including often unreported or under-counted domestic spending).
…
Read more: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2021/3/18/revenge-of-the-nerds-disaster-risk-reduction-and-climate-change
The abstract of the study;
The global financial burden of humanitarian disasters: Leveraging GDP variation in the age of climate change
Author links Topher L.McDougal, John H.Patterson
- Total humanitarian spending is 13 times as high as official figures: $367 billion.•
- 1 °C global temperature rise implies disaster spending of $1 trillion, 0.75% of GDP.•
- GDP per capita is the most reliably significant predictor of international flows.•
- Temperature anomalies predict significant increases to disaster vulnerability.
We quantify the global spending burden of humanitarian disaster response. While international response flows are well documented, global domestic spending on disasters is virtually unknown in any comprehensive way. We employ log-log fixed-effects models to estimate international humanitarian disaster response spending as recorded by UNOCHA’s Financial Tracking Service (FTS) by recipient country and year, as a function of GDP per capita. Conservatively assuming all humanitarian disaster response spending in the poorest countries originates from without, we calculate a Population Attributable Fraction for the proportion of total spending attributable to GDP per capita, reverse-calculating yearly estimates of total humanitarian disaster response spending. We find global humanitarian expenditures to be roughly 13 times as high as official FTS figures, or around $367 billion annually. Finally, we use Simultaneous Equation Models to examine how total humanitarian disaster response spending is influenced by climate change (proxied by NASA’s GISS Surface Temperature data). We find each 1° C rise in 5-year temperature anomalies would require an annual 3.1% (95% CI: 0.18%–6.01%) rise in humanitarian spending. In total, we estimate a further 1° C rise in global temperatures would require total annual humanitarian expenditures of approximately $1 trillion, or about 0.75% of worldwide 2019 GDP, in order to maintain current levels of humanitarian needs coverage. We find climate change to influence humanitarian spending only via GDP per capita and disaster hazard exposure, even though temperature anomalies predict significant increases to disaster vulnerability.
Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221242092100039X?dgcid=author
You have to admit this is a breathtakingly audacious climate pitch; demanding UN money to prevent disasters, citing disaster movies as evidence we should listen to their demand, then presumably, at some point in the future, taking credit for climate disasters which didn’t happen.
As the script of a B movie, it’s a bit of a disaster itself. Send it back to rewrite.
Better yet, drop it in the spittoon (the spitcan).
Oh, good lord, what a bunch of claptrap. The last sentence is the only thing of value.
The next question that arises is how does the UN intent to count something that never happened and the savings accrued? (lol)
Models of course.
Yes, but they’re “Simultaneous Equation Models” which, of course, don’t have all that uncertainty of coupled non-linear differential equation models. So, you know, math! It’s complicated. /s
Their waiting for Hollywood to answer that question .
Sending the script to the movie makers now .
That’s right – let us follow Hollywood science for our political decisions. Good-looking, smart folks are more reliable advisors, of course.
Winning!
Watch someone come out with a study in a couple decades showing how global warming could have been prevented if we had an ocean with a protective covering of single use plastic bags starting back around 2016…
ROFL 🙂
There is a bit of difficulty with plastic bags. They mechanically disintegrate from sunlight and waves to nearly microscopic particles in just a few weeks.
They generally don’t float very far in that time, not nearly enough to”form a protective covering of single used plastic bags starting back around 2016…”
The world’s surface area is ~5.1million km^2 of which ~1.48million km^2 is land.
Much as I don’t like the cold, ..
I really want the planet to drop down towards another LIA…
…. just to shut these raving AGW cultist loonies up.!
Except they would just change tack.. again !!
Hollywood is sensationalised FICTION. If the UN thinks this is a reference, then it implies that the UN are a fictitious body themselves in terms of credibility. To be demanding money based on fiction is a sure sign that there is something very suspect about the UN.
Solution: pay them in fictitious money as well and expect them to be content with it.
Hollywood – Actors – Scripts – Unwordly People
Who am I to argue with log-log fixed-effects models and Simultaneous Equation Models to examine disaster response spending to climate change of +1C? These people are masters of bafflegab.
All this squawking is a gross insult to those of us who have worked in disaster management and mitigation over the years. Stuff like slowly and steadily engineering rainstorm run-off, creating retention basins that help to mitigate the peak flows. Examining the debris from storms and cyclones; what broke? What didn’t break? Was the structure built according to code in the first place?
A small amount of this work was even funded by the UN back in the days when it wasn’t dominated by half-witted trouser-polishers.
In the movies, it’s always a lone nerd who is the only one who can see the impending doom. This is not the case with anthropogenic climate change, where one can see the whole establishment and the MSM on board with the disaster scenario. We here are the lone nerds who can see the disaster of transforming the world for a problem that doesn’t really exist.
In this case it’s the few who can see the derangement of the vast majority who, for one reason or another, believe in Anthropogenic global….
Four legs good, two legs bad.
Scripts written by wannabe nerds who depend upon nonstop CGI animation to float their ridiculous storylines.
Not to forget about the pseudo-scientists who see themselves as heroes in their sinister anti-science plots. One, just had a libel lawsuit kicked out of court.
I look forward to only having rain after midnight until 4 am and balmy sunny days, everyday, for the rest of my life. I wonder how much that will cost?
“Bridgeport?” said I, “Camelot” said he.
https://youtu.be/N0Bp5odIZjQ
If American cinema has taught us anything itts taught us that it’s unbelievable nonsense
Cue taking it seriously…
The UN has been operating in a fictional universe for a long time so why is this any different?
They want more money for less effectiveness.
They also illustrate we need massively armed vigilantes to take the law into their own hands and restore justice.
Are we going to get that?
So Chuck Norris should’ve been at the US Capitol on Jan. 6th? /Sarc
Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood too. Billy Jack for a cameo.
PBS and Bob Ross. Happy Accidents!
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/happy-accidents/
I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again:
Never, EVER rely on Hollywood movies for scientific accumen, political insight, or romantic advice. Scriptwriters are clueless in all 3 areas.
What about history…can we rely on H’Wood for our history?
My wife said “What about The Big Bus” when I mentioned that the UN was learning preparedness from Hollywood disaster movies. Fortunately, some jurisdictions, with extraordinary foresight, have acted to avoid The Big Bus disasters by banning nuclear things within their borders. Takoma Park Maryland, a DC suburb, is an example. I am not sure if their ban includes nuclear medicine and x-rays, but doubtless their residents sleep easier (if not sicker.)
You can find the full list in the shared database of Putin, NK, CCP, Iran, and Pakistan. New memberships to the service are being added all the time. /sarc
It’s worse than we thought….at the UN.
……and in the future…it will get even worse.
Don’t forget to smoke a lot on camera for the tobacco sponsor.
Who knew that survival was a race for your wallet. Darwin was only half right.
Shades of Uncle Tom’s Cabin that supposedly prompted in part the US Civil War resulting in 650,000 war dead, untold wounded, scorched earth of the advancing Union Army destroying businesses, homes, manufacturing facilities, imposing poverty in both North and South. And now we should look at the movies as an inspiration to action for something not proven.
This reminds me of the you have won pitch, send me 1,000 dollars so you can get the 2 million dollars you have won.
What’s the difference between citing Hollywood disaster movies and citing their own modelling?
If they are now using disaster movies it would suggest they have moved on to a more accurate model.
The United Nations was founded in 1945 with the intent of providing a venue wherein countries could talk about their differences and reach a peaceful solution rather than going to war. (The last meme I saw some years ago was “146 wars and counting”.)
Since then they’ve stuck their noses into just about every aspect of human life, just as any government would do. Control the masses, and have them pay tribute.
Back in the 1970’s, I used to see signs on bus stop seats, “Get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.” Hasn’t happened – as yet.
It seems to have been forgotten that soon after the UN was established leftists infiltrated the organisation, fellow travellers including members of the socialist Fabian Society established in the UK late 1800s, and promoting a new world order.
Australian Attorney General Evatt, a communist and lawyer, put forward the plan for the UN to arrange to sign as many Treaties with member nations as could be created, the objective was/is to get around the Constitution of those member (sovereignty) nations and provide UN supporters in governments with the basis for legislation and regulations to impose UN Treaties: eg; Agenda 21 – Sustainability (now Agenda 30).
Using sustainability as the excuse government lands were converted into National Parks (for future generations), in Australia managed (not well managed with due consideration for 2019/20 bushfires) by National Parks & Wildlife Rangers. Sustainability excuses bans on mining, logging, dams and more, in Marine National Parks bans on commercial fishing and amateurs.
President Trump admonished the UN arguing that they must stop interfering into the affairs of member nations, he did that twice while addressing UN Officials in New York. He told the UN to get back to the original concept model of operation.
The trillions of dollars that have been wasted on climate hoax is not only unacceptable but is also fraudulent, a crime against the people.
“… leftists infiltrated the organisation …”
The Presidential aide who was sent from Washington to San Francisco to set up the initial meeting that resulted in the United Nations was Alger Hiss. Hiss had already been accused of being a soviet spy. He denied it.
As intercepted soviet telegrams were decoded, it was determined – much later – that yes, he was a soviet spy.
One telegram mentioned that “X” accompanied Stalin back to Moscow after a “big-three” meeting. There were just three Americans who made that trip. Looking at other telegrams, “X” was in the middle east on such and such date; another telegram – placed “X” at a different location on a particular date. Hiss was the only person who matched those dates and places. (The Verona Papers – released in 1994.)
The communists were there from before the beginning.
“Treason” by Ann Coulter makes very interesting reading.
If they’re going to let Hollywood movies guide them, maybe they should keep in mind that it’s always the 97 percent majority of the scientists who are wrong, and “crazy” minority who are right.
The UNDRR, like the emperor, wears no clothes. I humbly suggest UNDRR wear.
I trust comic books more than movies.
citing disaster movies as evidence we should listen to their demand
Am I missing it? I don’t see anything about that in this post. I would think that a statement like that would warrant sharing the relevant quote(s) from the source material.
Go to the originating article.
For the record, the author identifies as:
“John H. Patterson
Humanitarian professional”
Yup! The author see himself as a sports hero with duo sports awards; Humanitarian and DRR expert.
That’s right, the poorest countries spend the most in response to disasters… According to their abused statistical models.
With findings like this, please note:
Only by “controlling for factors” could they achieve such levels of confirmation bias.
In their summary paragraph:
None of those factors are climate caused.
Nor is it incorrect to educate and train those people.
Except, the world’s leftists hate and abuse educated citizens.
I understand that it’s in the originating article. My point is that if it’s in the headline, the quote that inspired the headline should be included. (Side note, that didn’t mention a “disaster” movie)
As for “That’s right, the poorest countries spend the most in response to disasters” – maybe they do, proportionally. If so I would suggest it’s likely because they spend REactively more than PROactively (a direction the US appears to be heading) so they don’t really do much to prepare for disasters. That’s a possibility – but I don’t really care enough about this Patterson’s opinion to look into it.
American Cinema?
In simple terms, these folks believe TV and movies are reality…
That would make John Holdren the character of Wormtongue.
I just about have my kids convinced TV and movies aren’t real.
But they are kids.
What excuse do these clowns have?
And
The only way to reduce the human cost of severe weather is to reduce the number of humans
The goal all along its just that now they have given up waiting for nature to do it, they are enlisting the most efficient ki!!Ing machine in history to do the job.
Us.
Brilliant, you have to give them that, convincing so many people to destroy their own lives is a special talent.
True sales that.
Fabian Society of socialists and their supporters call that “Eugenics”.
Cull the human race, retain only those deemed to be productive.
Climate (hoax based) emergency!!!
Go Fund Me please.
sarc