Hurricane Harvey has left in its wake upended lives and enormous property damage, estimated by some to be US$150 billion to US$180 billion.
However, the rains that inundated the Texas coast for the better part of a week and the hurricane that has hit Florida raise deep questions about the US’ 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.
However, 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 said 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 said: “Greater warmth means more moisture in the air, which means stronger precipitation.”
Houston and Texas could not have done much by themselves about the increase in greenhouse gases, although they could have taken a more active role in pushing for strong climate policies.
However, 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 repairs — everyone turns to government, just as they did in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis.
Again, it is ironic that this is 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.
As with financial crises, there is a need for preventive collective action to mitigate the effects of climate change. That means ensuring that buildings and infrastructure are constructed to withstand extreme events and are not 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 effects 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.
The US and the world are paying a high price for devotion to the extreme anti-government ideology embraced by US 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.
However, the US 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 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 the US does not 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; afterward, they demand — and receive — billions of US dollars to compensate them for their losses, even those that could easily have been prevented.
One can only hope that the US, and other countries, will not need more natural persuasion before taking to heart the lessons of Hurricane Harvey.
Joseph Stiglitz, the recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001 and the John Bates Clark Medal in 1979, is a university professor at Columbia University, co-chair of the High-Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with