4 ms·

Does this help : "Since 1990, the toll of disasters as a proportion of the global economy has gone down from about 0.25% of GDP to less than 0.20%. That is goo

by sien 2y ago

Does this help : "Since 1990, the toll of disasters as a proportion of the global economy has gone down from about 0.25% of GDP to less than 0.20%. That is good news and indicates progress with respect to the goals of the Sendai Framework." from : https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/global-disaster-losses1990-2023 https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/global-disaster-losses1...

cm2187 2y ago
But global GDP has dramatically increased since the 90s, China and India in particular.
- euroderf 2y ago
  So instead of achieving full employment by paying people to dig ditches and then fill them up again, we create the climatic conditions for nonstop disasters and then clean up and rebuild after them. The end result? Profit!
  - gary_0 2y ago
    Think of how rich the glaziers will be, replacing all those windows damaged in storms! That sector of the economy will surely be a source of infinite wealth!
DaoVeles 2y ago
This is one of those figures that is both right and wrong, well more correct but also a little divisive (if you will). Yes, the percentage is down but the amount of damage is up. SO it depends on what you are optimizing for, share of costs or overall impact.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
This is very misleading. The damage should be proportional to the relevant parts of the economy, rather than as a proportion of the total. Especially keeping in mind that certain parts of the global economy are essential (like agriculture) and others less so. For example, suppose in year 1800 or whatever, 20% of some region's economy is agriculture. Drought occurs, and food production goes down by half. So gdp goes down by 10%. In 2024, agriculture is 4% of the economy. Drought again kills half the food production. GDP goes down by 2%. Are we doing better?
- chongli 2y ago
  You can't lump all of agriculture together as essential. A huge amount of the GDP in agriculture is in cash crops such as nuts. A drought wiping out all the almond production would be a disaster for almond farmers but not for food security. A drought wiping out half all grain production would be a food security disaster, however.
croes 2y ago
What about other reasons of damages like wars? If something is already destroyed it can't be destroyed by natural disasters.

by sien 2y ago

cm2187 2y ago

But global GDP has dramatically increased since the 90s, China and India in particular.

euroderf 2y ago
So instead of achieving full employment by paying people to dig ditches and then fill them up again, we create the climatic conditions for nonstop disasters and then clean up and rebuild after them. The end result? Profit!
- gary_0 2y ago
  Think of how rich the glaziers will be, replacing all those windows damaged in storms! That sector of the economy will surely be a source of infinite wealth!

DaoVeles 2y ago

This is one of those figures that is both right and wrong, well more correct but also a little divisive (if you will). Yes, the percentage is down but the amount of damage is up. SO it depends on what you are optimizing for, share of costs or overall impact.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago

This is very misleading. The damage should be proportional to the relevant parts of the economy, rather than as a proportion of the total. Especially keeping in mind that certain parts of the global economy are essential (like agriculture) and others less so. For example, suppose in year 1800 or whatever, 20% of some region's economy is agriculture. Drought occurs, and food production goes down by half. So gdp goes down by 10%. In 2024, agriculture is 4% of the economy. Drought again kills half the food production. GDP goes down by 2%. Are we doing better?

chongli 2y ago
You can't lump all of agriculture together as essential. A huge amount of the GDP in agriculture is in cash crops such as nuts. A drought wiping out all the almond production would be a disaster for almond farmers but not for food security. A drought wiping out half all grain production would be a food security disaster, however.

croes 2y ago

What about other reasons of damages like wars? If something is already destroyed it can't be destroyed by natural disasters.