When we descend into the vortex of natural disasters the mind tends to focus. Essentials and trifles become sharply distinguished. So it has been with the earthquake in Christchurch.
It is almost unheard of that a quake measuring 7+ on the Richter Scale has not resulted in any fatalities. Now, to be sure, this was probably helped by the fact that it occurred in the early hours of the morning when most folk were relatively safely tucked up in bed. We say "relatively". But zero loss of life is singular nonetheless.
Contrast the Haiti earthquake where hundreds of thousands of people died. The strength of the quake and the proximity were roughly parallel to the Christchurch quake. What produced such a stark and amazing difference in outcomes?
Jesse Dykstra is a PhD student in the Natural Hazards Research Centre at Canterbury University. He provides an explanation. First, the situation in Haiti:
Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, and does not benefit from stringent building codes. Construction practices are substandard and earthquake-proof buildings are few. An estimated 250,000 residences were destroyed or severely damaged in Haiti, leaving nearly 1 million people homeless. Even such important buildings as the Presidential Palace and National Assembly did not withstand the severity of the shaking. The collapse of buildings in Haiti led to tens of thousands of people being buried under rubble, or trapped inside unsafe structures.
Essential services were decimated. Infrastructure vital to the disaster response was severely damaged, meaning that people could not get the help that they needed in time. The loss of hospitals, major roads, rail links, harbours, and communication networks severely hampered rescue and relief efforts. Without sufficient aid, thirst, famine, looting, and eventually disease took a terrible toll.
Greenism and the environmental movement would celebrate Haiti because of its relatively very low carbon footprint, its closeness to nature, its lack of dependence upon fossil fuels, its simple lifestyle. Haiti would be a role model, one expects, for the superior kind of lifestyle that would save the planet if only everyone would adopt it. Christchurch, on the other hand, would represent everything that is evil, unsustainable, and bad about the modern world.
The relatively small amount of damage in Christchurch (at least compared to Haiti) allowed emergency services to mobilise and respond quickly to the earthquake. Hospitals remained operational throughout. Some essential services were damaged, but the Christchurch City Council responded quickly to water and sewerage disruptions, while electricity and communications providers worked effectively to get their systems back online. Most of Christchurch already has running water, working sewers, electricity and communications restored. This is a tribute to the preparation of the region, and reflects New Zealand's strong commitment to disaster planning and preparedness.
What Christchurch had accomplished in the way of preparedness is a function of economic prosperity and wealth. Without it, a society simply cannot afford to prepare and build the infrastructure that would protect when calamity strikes. Without wealth and financial resources people cannot get the education that is necessary to enable such protections to be put in place. A society can only achieve these things if they have a huge carbon footprint.
We have looked into the future of Greenism and we have seen Haiti. In the face of this reality, Greenism appears as superstitious and naive. It is flower power at its ignorant puerile worst.
No comments:
Post a Comment