Last week, a group of upper sixth geographers visited the Royal Geographical Society to watch a lecture entitled 'Not just economics - what we know about why social inequality persists and its possible consequences'. The lecture was given by Professor Danny Dorling of Oxford University, whose achievements include founding the cartogram website 'Worldmapper'.
Worldwide, Dorling said, the top 1% have 50% of the wealth. This is increasing at 7% per year so that in 7 years time the rich will earn essentially everything.
Later on in the lecture he addressed why this is a problematic development. Firstly, with high inequality comes less trust. One simply has to watch the period dramas currently being aired by the BBC such as Lady Chatterly's Lover and the Go-Between to see the level of fear that many upper class families had towards the working class, and the despair they felt at the thought of inter-class marriages. Also, in unequal societies people learn less well. Due to many people doing well in exams, for example those in private schools in the UK, there is more competition for the rest of society so exam results matter more. Therefore, instead of the focus in lessons being on understanding and interest in the subject, it is on how to pass or excel in exams (which doesn't always demand full understanding). Equal societies are also better than unequal ones at planning things on local or national scales. The housing and transport systems are often better in equal countries, possibly because they have fewer other worries.
Dorling also drew links, although sometimes tenuous, between characteristics generally conceived as 'bad' and inequality. For example, more unequal countries tend to have more obesity and higher water consumption and tend to emit more carbon dioxide and have higher infant mortality rates. This can perhaps be connected to the poorer planning in unequal countries: they may not have effective healthcare systems or initiatives to encourage lower emissions and water use.
From my own reading about the viewpoint that there is no such thing as a natural disaster I can say that another impact of inequality, for example within New Orleans, is the escalation of a natural hazard into a detrimental natural disaster. When Hurricane Katrina struck the city in 2005, the poor were vulnerable to the flooding due to a correlation in New Orleans between class and topographic location, with the poorer citizens being in the lower land at greater risk of flooding. Also, the rich had cars to evacuate, money for emergency hotels and supplies and insurance policies for rebuilding. This inequality contributed to the catastrophic impacts which caused the hurricane to be classed as a natural disaster.
Dorling additionally provided some explanation for the causes of inequality. A graph was shown that displayed how the share of total income in the UK that is received by the richest 1% has varied since 1918. The general trend was a decrease until the 1970s and an increase since then. He attributed the decrease to increased tax on the rich during world wars one and two and the Russian revolution scaring the rich due to killings of the wealthy there. It then returned to high levels due to the UK society being innately unequal because of the class system and aristocracy and because the UK won the world wars.
In contrast, Japan and Germany have relatively little inequality because they lost WWII. The USA then divided up Japanese land equally to avoid revolution, with tenant farmers benefitting and the power of rich landowners being reduced (as many of them advocated war and Japanese expansionism), and also downgraded the emperor's status and promoted greater rights for women. In Germany, the UK tried to increase equality by preventing successful cities from becoming more successful, for example by building the Berlin Wall, and by increasing the success of less successful cities. Attempts were made to convert Germany into a more pastoral and agricultural nation, with many factories being dismantled so only light industry was permitted.
The point was also made that poorer countries tend to have more inequality. This is because there is a higher level of poverty, prevalent now due to high levels of urbanisation, and because there is often no effective taxation system to prevent money hoarding.
Overall, this lecture interested us all by causing us to look at inequality not just in terms of the economy but also in terms of society and, in some cases, the environment. It will be of use to us when we undertake the development course as part of our A-Level next term.
Wednesday, 30 September 2015
Saturday, 22 August 2015
Is there such thing as a natural disaster?
I recently came across the proposition, accepted by most environmental geographers, that there is no such thing as a natural disaster. This proposition is largely based on the view that a natural hazard only becomes a disaster as a result of human exposure, vulnerability and poor management.
In order to form my own opinion about this topic, I decided I must first find what a disaster is considered to be. The obvious condition for an event to be considered a disaster is deaths, and the Bradford disaster scale does rank the magnitude of a disaster by the number of deaths. However, Horlick-Jones and Peters point out that fatalities are only one aspect of a disaster, and they are not a necessary condition. This leads to the definition put forward in 1990 by FEMA: "an occurrence that has resulted in property damage, deaths, and/or injuries to a community." But this begs the question of how severe the damage or how numerous the casualties must be. Multiple different sources agree that an event can be considered a disaster when the impact upon the people or area leads to external assistance being needed for the society to cope.
This definition suggests that whether a natural hazard becomes a disaster is determined by societies themselves because their level of susceptibility to harm, as well as effectiveness of response to it, determines whether they can cope without external assistance.
The increased human exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards can be used to partly explain the increase in reported natural disasters in recent decades, shown by the graph below. Although some of the increase may be due to improved reporting and communications, it is thought that two-thirds of the increase is actually due to a rise in the number of natural disasters.
Due to the recent growths in population and the economy, more people and more money are at risk. This is especially the case in urban areas with high population densities and economic assets, often growing too fast for safety regulations to keep up.
Especially significant growths are those along the coastline and on floodplains, which cause more people and infrastructure to be at risk from natural hazards such as floods and tsunamis. The number of people and total GDP exposed to flooding alone increased by 28% and 98% respectively from 1990-2007. Coastline development can also lead to the depletion of mangrove forests, which provide natural protection from tsunamis by slowing their flow rate by up to 90%, thus increasing the exposure of the populations further. Floodplain development can increase the risk of flooding occurring due to factors such as increased surface run off. Similarly, the need for more land for farming and housing has led to deforestation, which can be a factor in creating hazards such as floods and landslides.
Another explanation for the rise in the number of natural disasters is global warming, attributed to human action, increasing the number of natural hazards such as hurricanes, floods and droughts.
The decline in the past decade in the number of natural disasters is thought to be due to the improvement in preparedness for and response to natural hazards. The impact of this can be shown by the different impacts of Hurricane Ivan in 2004. When it hit Florida and Grenada, 27 and 100 people died respectively. However, when it hit Cuba, which has many different policies that reduce the threat of hurricanes, there were no deaths. In 1976, an earthquake killed 23,000 people in Guatemala. The majority of these deaths were not the direct result of the earthquake, but occurred in the days that followed due to aid not being sent to affected and needy people.
Therefore, natural hazards become disasters due to the presence of humans and their infrastructure in affected areas as well as insufficient preparation and response by humans. Humans can also create hazards that may become disasters, or increase the risk of them occurring. The impact of human actions leading to the creation of a natural disaster is shown by the disaster risk equation:
Based upon the points above, I would suggest that humans have influence upon all three factors that lead to a disaster occurring and thus there is no such thing as a 'natural' disaster.
However, there is some logic in this argument that I find hard to grasp. Since humans are animals and animals are components of nature, does this mean that humans are components of nature? If so, the argument that natural disasters are not natural because humans are present in an area affected by a natural hazard seems invalid. I can see that a rebuttal to this could be that it is the human infrastructure that is not natural. This I do not entirely accept either. Our infrastructure is created from natural components and the desire to want shelter and comfort is natural. If our infrastructure is not natural, surely this means that termite nests and bee hives are not natural either. Using this thought process, my conclusion would be that there is such thing as a natural disaster but they would not be disasters without the presence or influence of humans.
Ella Witts
In order to form my own opinion about this topic, I decided I must first find what a disaster is considered to be. The obvious condition for an event to be considered a disaster is deaths, and the Bradford disaster scale does rank the magnitude of a disaster by the number of deaths. However, Horlick-Jones and Peters point out that fatalities are only one aspect of a disaster, and they are not a necessary condition. This leads to the definition put forward in 1990 by FEMA: "an occurrence that has resulted in property damage, deaths, and/or injuries to a community." But this begs the question of how severe the damage or how numerous the casualties must be. Multiple different sources agree that an event can be considered a disaster when the impact upon the people or area leads to external assistance being needed for the society to cope.
This definition suggests that whether a natural hazard becomes a disaster is determined by societies themselves because their level of susceptibility to harm, as well as effectiveness of response to it, determines whether they can cope without external assistance.
The increased human exposure and vulnerability to natural hazards can be used to partly explain the increase in reported natural disasters in recent decades, shown by the graph below. Although some of the increase may be due to improved reporting and communications, it is thought that two-thirds of the increase is actually due to a rise in the number of natural disasters.
Especially significant growths are those along the coastline and on floodplains, which cause more people and infrastructure to be at risk from natural hazards such as floods and tsunamis. The number of people and total GDP exposed to flooding alone increased by 28% and 98% respectively from 1990-2007. Coastline development can also lead to the depletion of mangrove forests, which provide natural protection from tsunamis by slowing their flow rate by up to 90%, thus increasing the exposure of the populations further. Floodplain development can increase the risk of flooding occurring due to factors such as increased surface run off. Similarly, the need for more land for farming and housing has led to deforestation, which can be a factor in creating hazards such as floods and landslides.
Another explanation for the rise in the number of natural disasters is global warming, attributed to human action, increasing the number of natural hazards such as hurricanes, floods and droughts.
The decline in the past decade in the number of natural disasters is thought to be due to the improvement in preparedness for and response to natural hazards. The impact of this can be shown by the different impacts of Hurricane Ivan in 2004. When it hit Florida and Grenada, 27 and 100 people died respectively. However, when it hit Cuba, which has many different policies that reduce the threat of hurricanes, there were no deaths. In 1976, an earthquake killed 23,000 people in Guatemala. The majority of these deaths were not the direct result of the earthquake, but occurred in the days that followed due to aid not being sent to affected and needy people.
Therefore, natural hazards become disasters due to the presence of humans and their infrastructure in affected areas as well as insufficient preparation and response by humans. Humans can also create hazards that may become disasters, or increase the risk of them occurring. The impact of human actions leading to the creation of a natural disaster is shown by the disaster risk equation:
However, there is some logic in this argument that I find hard to grasp. Since humans are animals and animals are components of nature, does this mean that humans are components of nature? If so, the argument that natural disasters are not natural because humans are present in an area affected by a natural hazard seems invalid. I can see that a rebuttal to this could be that it is the human infrastructure that is not natural. This I do not entirely accept either. Our infrastructure is created from natural components and the desire to want shelter and comfort is natural. If our infrastructure is not natural, surely this means that termite nests and bee hives are not natural either. Using this thought process, my conclusion would be that there is such thing as a natural disaster but they would not be disasters without the presence or influence of humans.
Ella Witts
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
'Iceland's iconic volcanoes' lecture
On Monday February 2nd, the Geographical Society took a trip to the RGS in Kensington to hear science journalist Alexandra Witze talk about 'Iceland's iconic volanoes'. She focussed on seven of her 'favourite' volcanoes: Laki, Surtsey, Hekla, Heimaey, Bárðarbunga, Eyjafjallajökull, Snæfellsjökull. These are only a fraction of the more than 30 active volcanoes in Iceland. Witze commented that the extensive volcanic activity on the island is due to its location directly above the Mid-Atlantic Ridge as well as a hotspot. Both of these provide Iceland's volcanoes with molten material.
One eruption well remembered by much of the audience was Eyjafjallajökull, which led to airspaces above Europe closing for 6 days due to the risk of ash entering engines and forming a glassy substance. Despite the publicity given to this eruption due to its international impacts, the effects on Iceland were small compared to some of the others Witze mentioned. For example, Laki erupted in 1753-4 for 8 months, releasing many toxic gases including sulphur dioxide, which directly and indirectly killed many Icelandic people. The lava flows also entered river channels, evaporating the water in them and disrupting hydrological cycles. In total, one fifth of the island's population was killed as a result of this eruption.
A similar issue with sulphur dioxide is arising with the currently erupting Bárðarbunga volcano. Sulphur dioxide levels in towns near the volcano are well above recommended levels of exposure, and the Icelandic authorities are unsure on how to deal with this.
The eruption on the island of Heimaey had an interesting story. Lava flows were threatening to cut off an importing shipping route near the harbour on the island, so hundreds of the island's residents attempted to limit the path of the lava by spraying it with water in the hope of it cooling and thus solidifying (and it worked!).
Alexandra Witze also touched on the historical and cultural importance of volcanoes in Iceland. For example, Icelandic folklore sees Hekla as a gateway to hell.
Although some of the group wanted to hear more about the physical processes behind the volcanic eruptions, I am sure that this talk will prove useful when lower sixth geographers take a trip to Iceland this summer.
Ella Witts
One eruption well remembered by much of the audience was Eyjafjallajökull, which led to airspaces above Europe closing for 6 days due to the risk of ash entering engines and forming a glassy substance. Despite the publicity given to this eruption due to its international impacts, the effects on Iceland were small compared to some of the others Witze mentioned. For example, Laki erupted in 1753-4 for 8 months, releasing many toxic gases including sulphur dioxide, which directly and indirectly killed many Icelandic people. The lava flows also entered river channels, evaporating the water in them and disrupting hydrological cycles. In total, one fifth of the island's population was killed as a result of this eruption.
A similar issue with sulphur dioxide is arising with the currently erupting Bárðarbunga volcano. Sulphur dioxide levels in towns near the volcano are well above recommended levels of exposure, and the Icelandic authorities are unsure on how to deal with this.
The eruption on the island of Heimaey had an interesting story. Lava flows were threatening to cut off an importing shipping route near the harbour on the island, so hundreds of the island's residents attempted to limit the path of the lava by spraying it with water in the hope of it cooling and thus solidifying (and it worked!).
Alexandra Witze also touched on the historical and cultural importance of volcanoes in Iceland. For example, Icelandic folklore sees Hekla as a gateway to hell.
Although some of the group wanted to hear more about the physical processes behind the volcanic eruptions, I am sure that this talk will prove useful when lower sixth geographers take a trip to Iceland this summer.
Ella Witts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)