Climate Change Chameleon

On January 12th 2010, an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale hit Haiti. Between 100 000 and 300 000 people lost their lives and over 1.5 million people their homes. In the aftermath of the disaster, the lack of clean water led to an outbreak of cholera on the island.


More than a year later an earthquake of magnitude 6.3 shook Christchurch – the epicentre was close to the 400 000 people city. Buildings tumbled, collapsed and buried thousands of people; panic broke out and shocked survivors wandered the rubble-strewn streets.


Ten days ago, the hyper active tectonic plates around Japan caused an earthquake of magnitude 8.9 on the Richter scale. It was the seventh biggest quake in history. Buildings shook, bridges moved like jelly and people rushed out onto the streets.


But immediately after the quake, a BBC journalist reported that the atmosphere in Tokyo was quite calm and relaxed. People had not panicked, but put on helmets, followed earthquake guidelines, and evacuated buildings in an orderly fashion. The first TV pictures showed workers in a supermarket trying to protect wine bottles from falling down. When asked how he felt, a composed commuter commented that it was “inconvenient” that public transport was suspended since people wanted to “get home on a Friday evening – everyone is exhausted after a long week at work”.

When I first heard this interview, I couldn’t help but think “Seriously?”

Thinking back to the quakes in Haiti and Christchurch, I don’t remember the failure of the public transport system ranking particularly high on people’s list of concerns or many shop assistants being concerned about protecting bottles of wine.

So for me, this summarises and highlights one critical difference between the quakes: The Japanese were prepared.

Due to its location, Japan is prone to earthquakes and has suffered from several severe quakes in the past. Recognising their vulnerability, the Japanese Government, economy and people prepared themselves for seismic shocks: Children are taught in school how to behave in case of an earthquake; helmets are mandatory safety equipment; and Government developed construction techniques for buildings that achieve the highest possible quake resistance (Japan has built factory-sized research labs in which earthquakes are simulated and damages to real houses analysed. The engineers assess and address structural weaknesses, rebuild the houses, and shake them again... and again ... and again).

These investments in disaster preparedness and response paid off – people knew how to behave and remained calm and most buildings, including key emergency infrastructure such as hospitals, swayed but resisted the shocks.

While - for once - the earthquake is not due to climate change, there are important parallels and implications that can, should and must be extrapolated to climate change. The tragic events in Japan clearly demonstrate the need for countries to recognise their vulnerability to natural disasters, understand the impact it will have on them, investigate options to limit these impacts and invest in climate proofing their economies.

The Japanese Government may have spent a fortune on developing and implementing earthquake prone building standards, but these costs are nothing compared to the costs Japan would have incurred otherwise – destroyed buildings, a breakdown in water infrastructure, no access to health care and panic in the streets to name just a few. The same efforts need to be taken by all countries to understand how climate change (and climate change related disasters) will affect them and develop response mechanisms.

The impacts of climate change will be severe: temperatures are likely to rise; average rainfall will decline and become more variable; extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and tropical storms, are likely to occur more frequently; freshwater water availability will be reduced; soil quality and crop yields will decline negatively impacting global food production; up to 40 per cent of species may be at risk of extinction; coastal regions will suffer from higher incidence of flooding putting millions of people at risk...

The economic costs of inaction (i.e. not responding to climate change) are estimated to be between 5 and 20 per cent of global GDP per year.

There are two central concepts in understanding and responding to climate change: Mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation refers to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature increases. Scientists estimate that the cost of mitigation will be around 2 per cent of global GDP per year (in technical terms: in order to limit average global temperature increases to below 2°C above pre industrial levels with a “likely” probability of 66 per cent, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have to stabilise to 500 - 550ppm carbon-dioxide-equivalent).

But even if the World cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero immediately, we would see average temperatures increase significantly over the next century. Hence, in addition to mitigation efforts, countries need to invest in adaptation to respond to the already unavoidable impacts of climate change.

To date, international political efforts have largely focussed on cutting emissions, and neglected adaptation. So far, there are few quantitative estimates on the costs of adaptation, but initial estimates suggest that the cost may be around US$550billion per year – equivalent to the GDP of Switzerland or the cost of ten Olympic Games. However, adaptation costs are likely to vary significantly across countries with developing countries facing the highest costs.

But despite being high, the cost of action (i.e. mitigating and adapting to climate change) is still much lower than the cost of inaction (i.e. not responding to climate change).

Even though not directly related to climate change, the Japanese investments in earthquake preparedness and response are a good example of adaptation. By recognising country specific risk and making forward looking investments, the Government was able to lower the quakes impact and likely costs.

So what does this mean in a climate change context for a country like South Africa, which is likely to become drier and experience more and more extreme weather events, especially floods and droughts?

It means that South Africa must invest in R&D of drought resistant crops and more efficient farming techniques; build water infrastructure that minimises evaporation losses; review building and construction standards to ensure that infrastructure can resist flooding; develop mechanisms to address increased malnutrition; step-up efforts to prevent malaria; restricts building in areas that are prone to flooding; invest in disaster response mechanisms and upscale funds for disaster relief; launch awareness campaigns to teach people how to respond in case of flooding...

The list goes on and on – there is lots that needs to be done.

And little time...