Where Did the Money Go?

In 2010 Haiti was devastated by earthquakes that leveled the country. The Red Cross raised nearly half a billion dollars to help rebuild roads, houses, and schools. However in an article written by NPR in 2015, claims that five years later none of Red Cross's promises have been kept. NPR and ProPublica investigated where the almost 500 million dollars that was donated has gone.

In their investigation they found misleading data and many failed projects (Sullivan 2015). NPR found that, "The Red Cross says it has provided homes to more than 130,000 people, but the number of permanent homes the charity has built is six"(Sullivan 2015). This left many Haitians with false hope and confusion about what the Red Cross was doing with all that money. It turns out that much of the money never reached the people who needed it. Instead it turns out that a third of the money went to administrative costs and management fees (Sullivan 2015).

NPR found that a lot of the Red Cross's projects ran into trouble when they tried to actually build houses and help the people of Haiti. John Hannigan explains that no disaster can be resolved with out politics and government. This is precisely why the Red Cross had so many problems with getting the housing projects underway. They struggled with being able to meet government regulations and laws. They also had problems with dealing with old land laws. They did not work closely with the government or with the people.

Other organizations had more luck. For the example, Global Communities and PCI have built 300 multi house hold homes with running water (Sullivan 2015). These organizations achieved this by working closely with the Haitians, who were motivated to get things done because it is their country. They did not just hire the people of the country, the organizations has the Haitians actually running the projects and in high positions. Because of this they had success in rebuilding, unlike the Red Cross even though they had half a billion dollars.

This raises questions about relief. How effective can relief  be without working with the people affected by the disasters? Does the amount of money raised really matter if it isn't managed well? Should people give money to local organizations instead of international ones? In the case of Haiti half a billion dollars may have been more productively used if it was given to local organizations in Haiti instead of an international one.  
     

Earthquakes and Infrastructure

On October 17th, 1989, a 6.9 magnitude earthquake hit the San Francisco Bay Area and killed 67 people. Although the earthquake was one of the biggest in US history, it killed a relatively small amount of people but caused more than $5 billion in damages. One of the biggest devastations of the '89 quake was the collapse of a segment of the Bay Bridge that killed many. This and other destructions of infrastructure led the California government to invest their money into making what they rebuild earthquake proof.

Since the '89 earthquake, California and the Bay Area have done a lot to ensure that the buildings, roads, and bridges ruined during the quake would be rebuilt to withstand future disasters. One of the biggest investments was the replacement of an entire span of the Bay Bridge that would be able to withstand another earthquake of that magnitude. So, a new eastern portion of the bridge was built between 2002 and 2013 that was 'earthquake proof'. The total cost of the new span of the bridge was $6.4 billion dollars.

The Bay Area is very prone to earthquakes because it sits on the San Andreas fault, which was the cause of both the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes. According to several geologists who have observed and studied the San Andreas fault, an earthquake with an approximated magnitude of 8.0 is due to hit very soon. The Bay Area and broader United States are fortunate due to their ability to prepare for future disasters by investing in getting buildings up to code and building infrastructure that can withstand powerful disasters. But what about other countries that do not have the means, man power, or money to do such investments?

Collapsing infrastructure is one of the main ways people die in earthquakes, and must be a main focus in places where earthquakes are prone to happening. If a densely populated country along a fault line is unable to strengthen their buildings and bridges, then should the rest of the world just leave them to suffer when disaster does strike? Or should INGO's and other governments help these countries now to reduce casualties when an earthquake does occur?

http://www.history.com/topics/1989-san-francisco-earthquake
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/05/08/san-andreas-fault-brink-devastating-earthquake/#af9e445e44eb

Where Will the People Go?

The Internal Displacement Monitoring Center states that “almost 28 million people... were displaced by environmental disasters every year between 2008 and 2013”. This displacement will continue to be a prominent issue in our society.  

The consequences of land being decimated by disaster after disaster is not only horrendous in terms of lives and land lost, but also in terms of culture. UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, has stated that “Not only states, but cultures and identities will be drowned”.

The New York Times has covered the trials and tribulations for those that need to be resettled. One important question is, “what do we do with vulnerable peoples who can, but do not wish to be, resettled?”.

In terms of funding, in 2016 we saw “the first allocation of federal tax dollars” intended to resettle a community impacted by climate change. This allocation is a positive step in the right direction, however, what happens when governments cannot afford this relocation? One may suggest asking for funds from other nations. One issue with this suggestion is to do with the name for these vulnerable peoples.

The United Nations defines a refugee as someone who has been “forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Climate refugees do not fit this description and adding the term “climate” before the term “refugee” is helpful only for ease of understanding for those unfamiliar with the plight that these individuals face. One of the reasons why this terminology is so important is because funds allocated exclusively for refugees cannot, then, be allocated to climate refugees.

One of the most tragic aspects of this situation is the fact that those who are the most negatively affected are not those who are to blame for the issue. Another tragic aspect is that those that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change are often the ones who are not able to afford to adapt in response.

Numerous questions arise as a result of this issue: How should we alter the UN definition of refugee to suit these vulnerable peoples? What can we do on an individual level to try to support climate refugees? What actions are the most effective actions that are currently being taken on an international scale? 

Food Disaster?

Recently there's been a rise in salmon prices due to the outbreak of sea lice. The Guardian reports that there was a 50% rise in whole sale cost. Over the past year the global supply of salmon decreased by 9% will likely continue to fall. Experts attribute the recent increase in parasites to rising sea temperatures due to climate change. 

In class we discussed what qualifies as a disaster. The rise in salmon prices is not a disaster, more of a concern than anything. However, the rise of parasites due to climate change is a worrying development. Climate change obviously qualifies as a disaster, since it results in a variety of disasters: extreme weather, water shortages, rising sea levels, rising sea temperatures, food shortages, thinning of the ozone layer, melting ice caps, etc. Although this specific instance may not qualify as a disaster, food shortages (as well as water shortages) are becoming more and more common due to climate change. The constant increase in population will also lead to more cases of food insecurity.

The question then becomes: when is food security a disaster? Are famines disasters? When will it become a worldwide issue instead of one that disproportionately affects underdeveloped and developing countries? Will developed countries begin focusing on finding solutions for food and water scarcity soon or only when it affects them or their interests? Even the media hasn’t been reporting much on the famine in Yemen. In the U.S. we are used to having an abundance of food in our supermarkets, obesity is a larger concern than starvation. This makes it difficult for us to actually pay attention and see how recent events such as sea lice indicate a larger issue of food insecurity.  

A "Risky" World?

The chance of rain is 40% right now. Later tonight, it will be 85%. According to a 1995 EPA report, global warming was "most likely to raise sea levels 15cm by the year 2050" (Titus and Narayanan 1995, 5). Twenty years on, the predictions are more dire (Guardian 2016). Prior to the Fukushim nuclear disaster, experts in the industry claimed with confidence that nuclear power plants were safer than ever and Japan was commonly used as the benchmark for earthquake preparedness. Today, the assessments are much less optimistic and scientists estimate that the world should expect a nuclear reactor accident every 10-20 years (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 2012).

We are tempted to reduce the world that we live in to probabilities and risk calculations. There are a few reasons for that. First, probabilities are readily visible to policy makers and in providing a snippet of reality, they allow them to respond accordingly. Once 1997 proved the year when the ozone layer became demonstrably breached, the international community came together and took steps to reverse the damage.

Second, on a more individual level, once we can calculate risks, we can take appropriate measures. People who live in flood zones buy flood insurance. Conversely, Europeans do not insure their houses against hurricanes very often. So far...

Third, and building on the prior points, it is comforting to know that we have scoped out the threats, taken proper precautions and thus cannot be surprised. But have we? Can you think of what the flip side of the apparent advantages of the risk-based "streamlining" of problems we face as a society (local and global) might be? How reliable are those probability calculations and how much can we count on the corresponding solutions to actually work? What happens if they do not? Do these questions change how you view the image below?