Editor's Notebook (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Globe and Mail, 2022
In this op-ed, my co-author and I explore what the incredibly impactful derecho storm in Ontario and Quebec means for Canadian disaster preparedness. We argue that we must change our thinking on ‘natural’ disasters and consider better processes and approaches in the aftermath of these events. We should conduct technical analyses to better assess how to improve resilience and not simply “put everything back the way it was”. Published: June 4th, 2022
Chapter 14 Disaster and Climate Change
Berghahn Books, 2022
I n the last few decades, disasters of both geophysical and technological agency have become alarmingly more frequent and severe across our planet. The eff ect of this unprecedented development is that ever larger numbers of people are suff ering from calamitous events and experiencing escalating conditions of vulnerability. Despite all the modern advances of the current epoch, safety has not increased. It has grown worse.
2020 has been a year of disasters! The Center for Disaster Philanthropy lists a large number of disasters that occurred, worldwide, in 2020-including, of course, the Atlantic hurricane season, the North American wildfire season, spring tornadoes, civil unrest in the United States,. .. and Covid-19. Of the five disasters mentioned above, two have their basis in societal factors: civil unrest in societal inequality, and Covid-19 in a failure of our "leaders" to address the problem in a timely manner. The other three problems are commonly labeled as "natural disasters," but such a designation is only true in a direct sense. As this article points out, "climate change" 1 is what has been "behind" those "natural disasters," with "climate change" itself being of an anthropogenic nature. That is, it's human activities (such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation) that have been causing the "natural disasters" that we have inflicted (!) on ourselves. It may, therefore, seem obvious that because it's some of our activities that are causing these problems, by ceasing those activities those problems would thereby be solved. What such reasoning overlooks, however, is: 1. The "culprit" activities in question are an integral part of social systems. This means that societal systems are dependent on, for their continuation, those activities-so that only by changing the nature of those societal systems will it be possible to achieve a cessation of the activities of the activities that are causing the global warming now occurring. 2. Even if the culprit activities were to cease tomorrow, global warming would continue. The reason: Related to the fact that Earth is a system is the fact that our activities have set in motion a process such that global warming is now "feeding on itself." That is, some of the consequences of the global warming that we have caused (such as the thawing of permafrost) are now themselves causes of further warming! What the above two points suggest, then, is that: 1. Solving the problem of global warming will require us make important changes in societal systems ; and 2. Those changes must be initiated yesterday! We can't, obviously, make changes in the past! My point, of course, in saying that is that we need to develop a sense of urgency in addressing the problem. If we fail to do so, it may be necessary to answer the question raised by this article-"Human Extinction by 2026? "-in the affirmative! Developing a sense of urgency is, though, not enough; what's needed, in addition, is a conviction that the necessary changes are possible. My goal here is to provide evidence that may serve to convince people that "salvific" change can, in principle (at least!), be achieved. .
Climate Trauma, or the Affects of the Catastrophe to Come
Environmental Humanities, 2018
The climate catastrophe to come is traumatically affecting, whether in its micro and macro manifestations, in the threat it poses to existing ways of life, in its upending of entrenched understandings of the workings of the world, or in the injury it is doing to particular lives and wider ecologies. It works on ecologies and bodies alike as a kind of wounding, one not simply or solely to the everyday stuff of biological life but to the very constitution of experience and expression. Critiquing and extending writing on climate, trauma, and aesthetic experience by E. Ann Kaplan (2016), Timothy Morton (2013), and others, this article argues that these affects of climate catastrophe are traumatically affecting without necessarily being traumatizing: they are jarring, rupturing, disjunctive experiences of future crisis in the now. This article traces these affects of apocalypse as they circulate traumatically in three texts: George Miller's film Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), Marina Zurkow's animation Slurb (2009), and Briohny Doyle's novel The Island Will Sink (2016). Climate catastrophe, that most threatening yet elusive of hyperobjects, marks and emerges irresistibly from within these works, not simply as theme, setting, or symbol but as the form of their affectivity. This intensity presses into the present from the future, shaping how the catastrophe to come is felt today and exposing crucial tensions between aesthetic expression and lived experience.
2020
Natural hazards pose a significant risk to local economies, critical infrastructure and public health and safety. Climate change compounds this risk by introducing a new existential threat to Canadian riverine communities, amplifying the risks of flooding for homeowners. Ensuring the long-term sustainability of communities requires the implementation of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction strategies. Managed retreat-the act of purchasing, demolishing and/or relocating homes that are under the threat of flooding-is one of the few government-supported policy options that are available to Quebec homeowners facing repeated long-term flood-damage, through the General Indemnity and Financial Assistance Program Regarding Actual or Imminent Disasters-Flooding. An alternative policy option, which is available in Ontario, is the Disaster Recovery Assistance for Ontarians (DRAO) program that is used to aid homeowners in repairing, cleaning and replacing damaged essential property (Government of Ontario, 2016). The 2017 and 2019 Ottawa River floods, which affected both Constance Bay, Ontario and Pointe Gatineau, Quebec, indicated the need for increased government assistance for homeowners to cope with flood related events. Effective policy deployment in both jurisdictions, along with future support and retreat options for homeowners, could be offered in advance to help mitigate flood disaster risks. This research adopts the protect, accommodate, retreat and avoid (PARA) framework in the context of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. This approach allows for the examination of the perspectives of different stakeholders who have vested economic, political and social interests in Canadian flood related disasters. Semi-structured interviews provided insights into why different policies were created in Ontario and Quebec (despite sharing a common river and flood risks), how the policy deployment strategy that followed the 2017/2019 floods evolved, and how the policies prompted homeowners to make the decision to retreat or rebuild. This research provides insights into flood adaptation strategies that are cost effective and highlights the successes and challenges associated with governmentsponsored home buyout and disaster recovery assistance programs. This research is intended to assist policy makers to make informed, evidence-based decisions that can protect communities from inundation risks and build long-term resilience against flood hazards.