Flooding in the U.K. the politics of a...disaster?

Hey all, this will be the post for the “Earthquakes” group for the 2/28 class. I recently came across an article from CNN about the recent weather the U.K. has been experiencing. For this time of year, such a report seems so commonplace it approaches irrelevance considering the United Kingdom experiences some of the more torrential and temperamental weather in the Northern Hemisphere. That being said, I think a more critical analysis of the piece reveals some of the topics that we’ve touched upon in class.

Basically, the Thames River Valley area has been experiencing century-breaking record rainfall in the last two months. This has caused areas such as Berkshire and Surrey to become doused by floods from the overflowing Thames River, affecting nearly 6,000 homes. Additionally, this has been compounded by the storming that has paralyzed western Wales, northwestern England, and parts of Ireland with some 450,000 power outages. All of this weather has severely impacted local transportation and industry along with triggering 18 severe flood warnings mainly around southeast England. Even Queen Elizabeth’s cottage in the upper class communities of Maidenhead and Windsor has been disturbed.

First off, the reason that the public, media, and most importantly the involved people of the U.K. were made aware of the specifics was because of the work of two disaster weather-related organizations in Britain, The Environment Agency and The Met Office. As discussed in a previous post, these institutions are making information to prepare, react, and remedy natural disasters accessible to the people in the U.K. who need it most. The rise of the internet age and a more interconnected and information driven society has birthed these non-governmental associations that act to facilitate organization, disseminate information, and catalyze action surrounding disasters. England’s Met Office, the national weather service, and Environment Agency, a congress of people committed to providing preparation and relief to flooding in the U.K. Both of these groups exemplify the growing number of non-governmental actors rushing into the natural disaster scene.

Secondly, another aspect of this article highlights an intriguing component of the politics surrounding disasters. Both Princes Harry and William made appearances to assist flood defense in the Thames River Valley area. Traditionally, the theories of Realism and Liberalism confined the politics of natural disaster reaction to the actors such as the state or intergovernmental organizations (like the E.U.) geared toward bargaining toward mutual benefit. However, the emergence of the Princes in the face of environmental crisis underscores a growing facet of disaster politics, the private sector. Although the Princes aren’t personally bankrolling aid to the flooded areas around the Thames, their appearance is a key symbol of other characters, such as Fortune 500 companies or celebrities. These corporations and individuals are investing and amplifying philanthropic ventures in order to provide another driver to conduct the vehicle of disaster relief. To me, this development of the private sector into the political arena of environmental relief, in a way legitimizes the constructivist philosophy.

Lastly, I think that the environmental events occurring in England are also a stellar example of another topic discussed in class. Because a nation’s wealth effects how it will be impacted by a disaster, along with the storming in the U.K. being mostly a domestic occurrence, I contend that the flooding is a crisis, not a disaster. I believe that due to financial situation of England along with the duration of the storming, the international community has branded this event a crisis and not a disaster. This is an important categorization because without recognition by the non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations as serious, an environmental episode will not receive the aid that a disaster would garner.
Here's the link for the CNN article previously mentioned: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/14/world/europe/uk-weather-flooding/index.html 

Disaster Prevention?

While looking into some of the articles in the Los Angeles Times, I found an article on natural disasters that does not highlight the catastrophic nature of the event, but rather that catastrophe was largely averted. It praises India for its forward thinking and preparedness for the disaster, rather than for reacting after it happened. 

Last October, the largest cyclone in fourteen years passed through the eastern part of India. However, while there was considerable damage to property, there was a relatively small number of deaths in total. Despite that it hit hardest an area of over 850,000 people, only 23 people in one of the most most populous nations of the world were killed in the storm. (While it is sad that there were any deaths at all, the expectation was that there would be a great deal more deaths as a result of Cyclone Phailin.)

The reason for this small count is that India was ready for the storm before it actually occurred. People were able to flee the areas and seek refuge else where while the cyclone passed through (all the while destroying much of their livelihoods - but at least they had their lives!). 

This is one of the challenges facing the political sphere of disaster relief. Though it can be said that the world is rather good at responding to disasters, many argue that we need to become better at prevention. Though obviously no one can stop a storm from coming, what happened in India provides proof that it is possible to stay ahead of the storm and prevent much of the damage and/or loss of human life. It begs the question as to why so many nations still struggle so much with the process of prevention? It is, after all, not unfeasible.

  A different article, also from the Los Angeles Times, asks this same question with regards to the United States. David R. Conrad and Edward A. Thomas, writers of this article, argue for the United States government to step up their prevention programs as opposed to simply relief (which is also important, but the focus should be reducing future damages). They claim that that greater insurances, much like the ones that exist in case of floods, should be extended towards other disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes. What do you think? Considering the cost of insurance in this country in the first place, would having such insurance be a good idea to prevent people from having such great losses?

John Hannigan, author of Disasters Without Borders, suggests that the reason for why systems for prevention are still so immature is due to a lack of central planning among the risk management organizations (pp. 20). He calls this disaster risk reduction (DRR), and states that there are scientists scattered in the political world for disaster reduction, but are less there for disaster risk as for environmental protection. That also raises a good question: Would having more scientists in the policy field of disaster prevention provide greater validation for the need of risk reduction? I have to wonder how, with all the advancements in society, it could be so difficult to transition to better risk reduction policies. Considering the success stories of those times when a county has been prepared for a disaster and acted accordingly, such as the case with Cyclone Phailin in India, why have these policies not yet spread through the political world? Even those most developed countries with great resources and money at their disposal for such uses struggle to transition to this way of managing natural disasters. 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/16/opinion/la-oe-conrad-disasters-20130416 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/13/world/la-fg-1014-india-storm-20131014 

Germany’s Decision to Shut Down Reactors: Hurting or Helping

Germany’s Decision to Shut Down Reactors: Hurting or Helping

After reading one of the assigned articles about Germany’s decision to shut down all of its nuclear reactors by 2022 I was interested to find out more about the progress of this decision and some of the effects this decision has had. 

Germany’s decision came after the melt down in Fukushima. This melt down had an effect on the way that nuclear plants were viewed everywhere. A main reason for this is that Japan was thought to have some of the safest plants and toughest regulations. So this raised the question in a lot places where these plants existed if this could happen to them too. 

In late 2013 the United Kingdom made the decision to build its first nuclear power plant since the meltdown at Fukushima in 2011. This decision sparked debate across Germany on whether or not it was the right choice to decide to close all of the nuclear plants, especially so soon after a crisis. The argument being made is whether it was just a quick emotion filled response to the meltdown at Fukushima or if it is a smart thought out plan that will only benefit Germany. 

An interesting argument brought up in the article, relating to the UKs decision to build this power plant, is the idea that the international community needs to realize that these meltdowns are not exceptions to the norm but actually a part of the industry. When thinking about this argument it really makes you think about the major pros and cons, the pros being cleaner energy, and the cons being the risk, this risk is something that according to this article is not out of the norm but an accepted fact, and meltdowns and disasters will only continue to occur.

In the case of Germany shutting down it’s plants, the argument is that the risks over 

power the pros. But this plan is costly and so far seemingly ineffective as their technology and use of other renewable sources is currently lacking. So as of now Germany is continuing on shutting down nuclear plants, while using more fossil fuels which are worse for the environment, when this whole movement of no more nuclear was to be both safer and more environmentally friendly, ultimately wanting to rely much more heavily off of renewable resources other then nuclear. 

This also brings up the issue of preparedness for a nuclear meltdown. With the idea that the risk is just the norm of this industry and how it is known that it is very possible for a meltdown to happen at some point, how prepared can these states be for a meltdown and disaster. With what happened in Fukushima it may be possible for countries to learn from that for the response to these disasters, but with nuclear disasters it is hard to know the level of devastation that is going to occur, based on how bad the melt down is. If these disasters are just a fact of nuclear plants, like hurricanes in florida, then how prepared are certain countries for a meltdown of any size.  

This also raises a lot of questions about the idea of borders, sure Germany can decide that in its country borders it doesn’t want any more nuclear plants for fear of meltdown, but with neighboring countries, and now the UK making this new push for new plants, if meltdowns happen in these places, and turn into disasters how isolated will these disasters be? When we look at what happened in Japan, of course the greatest effects are in Japan but the effects are being seen and felt in many other different places.

Is Germany’s decision really helping the country or is it hurting it because it is hurting ties to many other countries whose new ideals are focused on building up nuclear energy. Especially with a major increase in the Green Peace party in Germany, a group that strongly protests against new plants and nuclear energy and instead focuses on other renewable sources, I think that it will be difficult for Germany to have as strong of bonds and relations with certain states because of this matter, when it seems as if the international consensus is still that nuclear plants should be continued.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24604218

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-uk-nuclear-reactor-spurs-reexamination-of-german-policy-a-930822.html

Acadia Ryder

Incoming Fukushima Plume to the United States

Hey Guys! This is the final blog from the Hurricane's group before round 2 :)

The article “North American scientists track incoming Fukushima plume” discusses the likeliness of the radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear energy disaster to spread to the West Coast of North America within the next two months. The radioactive plume of water has already spread to Canada. Both radioactive caesium-137 and 134 are present, however, the radioactive limits are within the safety requirements. But the effects of a nuclear disaster in Japan affecting the United States are truly astonishing. What is even more shocking and what I believe truly speaks to this weeks lecture is that the traces of radioactive plume were detected 2,000 kilometers away from the source of the incident in Japan, a significant distance. If nuclear energy incidents can affect other nations years later and thousands of miles away, then doesn’t the threat of a nuclear energy disaster outweigh the benefits of using nuclear energy? Even though nuclear energy is emission free energy, which is greatly beneficial, I believe the risk outweighs the gain. Another article we were to read for class today, by Socolow, even states that the world is not now safe for a rapid expansion of nuclear energy. Fukushima occurred in March 2011 and caused 150,000 to leave their homes due to radiation,

and the nuclear energy is expected to hit the United States waters three years later. Although it is estimated the radioactive elements in the US water will be safe, what if the levels were above the safety zone? What if our waters were now dangerous because of a Japanese decision to build a nuclear energy plant? What would the United States do? There would surely be a crisis.

I believe the article I picked today relates the “Fukushima nuclear disaster is warning to the world, says power company boss” article that was to be read for class today. The British government is planning to build a new generation of nuclear power plants and the Japanese warned the British to be prepared for the worst. But does preparing for the worst prevent other countries from being affected by Britain’s actions? The answer is no. As we discussed in class, even if there is a well-developed plan, such as the one mentioned in the article for class, including waterproof seals, we are still dealing with nuclear energy, which has the power to destroy the world we live in today. It is clearly evident that Fukushima is affecting both Canada and the United States years later. We have to keep in mind that nuclear energy remains present for a long duration and serves as a danger zone for the world population. Which brings up another question, should a country be able to build something that could potentially affect the world population if something were to go wrong? And, if countries have a problem with the building of nuclear energy power plant can they intervene within the country? Again, the answer is no. If a near by country has a serious issue with the building of the nuclear power plants, the country can voice its opinion, but as we spoke about in class, any intervention within the country impedes on the states sovereignty.

So I ask you to think about this, does the risk of a nuclear world disaster outweigh the gains of nuclear energy? Or we just take the ball and roll with it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26329323

Humanitarian Emergencies, beyond aid what's at stake?

To continue along with the readings, on Humanitarian Emergencies, I found an interesting article about Afghanistan and its’ Humanitarian Crisis, from the Brookings Institute. Although we've talked alot about International aid on the blog, I thought itd be interesting to discuss the potential issues of refugee displacement and the role of development actors in humanitarian crises.
Afghanistan 2014: A Crisis of Internal Displacement

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/08/30-afghanistan-internal-displacement-koser




A bit of background on the current situation, “Afghanistan struggles to provide for the largest population of returnee refugees in the world — 5.7 million people.” A rough estimate given by the UN and aid agencies is that the amount of humanitarian aid currently being funded for the crisis in Afghanistan is $471 million. (http://www.worldvision.org/news/top-humanitarian-priorities-2013)

Interesting similarities between the Ethiopia Famine that we read and the current situation is Afghanistan are the internal clashes between political parties, the issue of internal displacement amongst Afghani citizens, and the lack of preparedness to manage seasonal crops because of displacement and conflict. The Brookings Institute published findings on the severity of internal displacement in Afghanistan, “Any new internal displacement in Afghanistan would exacerbate an already fairly serious internal displacement crisis in Afghanistan. As of March 31, 2013, a total of 534,006 people were recorded by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) as internally displaced by conflict in Afghanistan. These statistics combine conflict-induced and other displacements, as well as both relatively new and protracted caseloads. Internal displacement has already been rising over the past year, and is projected to continue to increase over at least the next 12 months. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, over 100,000 people were displaced by conflict in Afghanistan in 2012 and a further 32,000 by natural disasters. In the first six months of 2013 an additional 60,000 people were displaced internally, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.”( http://www.worldvision.org/news/top-humanitarian-priorities-2013)

To combat the amount of Internal Displaced Persons (IDP’s) a memorandum of understanding was signed. Challenges with enforcing this will be rampant. But Khalid Koser affirms, “ [because of the potential setbacks]…In all these areas international support will be required if the national policy is to be effective.” (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/08/30-afghanistan-internal-displacement-koser)

I think this comes back to my understanding of a humanitarian crisis, due to so much inner turmoil a country that has become too fractured to support its citizens requires international support as well as local for an issue effecting a large community. How does the amount of aid provided to a country impact the development issues and the returning refugee situation? These were a few thoughts that crossed my mind as I reflected on the Ethiopian Famine and the current situation in Afghanistan.

I would also like to pose this question for discussion: What role do development actors have in response to situations of humanitarian crises, especially in regard to an influx of refugees? How does a country like Afghanistan with refugees outnumbering local residents in many places, make effective development interventions (improving infrastructure, sanitation, the local economy, environment, etc)?



-Jessi Fulton

(Though this blog post is uploaded by my - Lorraine's - profile, this comes from Andrew Chen)

Since lots of posts here tend to talk about disaster prevention and funds, I would like to introduce Japan's Disaster Prevention System, which is titled as the best disaster prevention system around the globe.

Due to its vulnerability to natural disasters, Japan has successfully developed the world’s best disaster prevention system. The Earthquake Early Warning is invented to alert people through television or radios early enough before the earthquake actually taken place. When the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) has detected P-wave (shown in figure 1) from more than two seismometers installed throughout the country. After JMA receive earthquake warnings from those seismometers, they would analyze and predict the rough area that the earthquake might affect, an alert would be sent out to the general public through televisions, radios and cell phone messages. 

 

Japan learned its lesson during the Kobe earthquake of 1995 that killed more than 6,000 people and destroyed most of the transportation/residence infrastructure. After the disaster, the government decided to push out a reassessment of the building regulations for both residential offices and transport infrastructure: Buildings now are made mostly (lots of traditional wooden buildings survived through the Kobe Earthquake) in timber that could bear the tremor better than other materials.

The most important factor that Japan could prevent huge loss during the strike of natural disasters is education among the general public. Huge loss could be prevented when every part of the society knows how to response. Every individuals in Japan has been prepared for earthquakes due to the fact that schools, companies and government agencies must held earthquake drills from time to time by the law. Most Japanese have been prepared through numerous amounts of drills and education received from schools when they grow up. 

When I visited Japan last year I had experienced more than ten times of mild earthquakes in one month and the locals there told me tons of information regarding how to react/response/do/not do after an earthquake. During my stay, sometimes I feel bad for them because the reason why they are so knowledgeable and prepared is the simple fact that they live on an island that is truly vulnerable, but there is no doubt that when a disaster strikes, they could manage to survive and look out for each other. 

Sources and additional readings:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8375591/Japan-earthquake-country-better-prepared-than-anyone-for-quakes-and-tsunamis.html

https://www.uni-due.de/riskandeastasia/index.php?id=99&tx_t3blog_pi1%5BblogList%5D%5Bday%5D=28&tx_t3blog_pi1%5BblogList%5D%5Bmonth%5D=03&tx_t3blog_pi1%5BblogList%5D%5Byear%5D=2011&tx_t3blog_pi1%5BblogList%5D%5BshowUid%5D=8&cHash=b52903fe515b34191b5ea550206895f8

Author: Andrew Chen

Word Count: 337

When Prevention Should be Taken?

         When and Where Should Prevention be Taken


         After the discussion in previous topics and in class about having a fund or creating prevention's I started to think about some matters in the subject. How strong and lasting the crisis or the disaster must be in order for prevention's against it to be taken?

The point that I reflected upon was of when is it worth it to create funds and prevention's to certain types of crisis and disasters. If we take Washington D.C. for an example, it is not the first time that the city has seen snowstorms such as the one we are facing this week but even though flights, school and other still close or get cancelled while in other places a snowstorm of this magnitude would not have the same effect, since the place was prepared for it.

If we take this comparison to a larger scale, nations who are constantly under the effect of a type of disaster usually have some kind of prevention, Netherlands for example. But nations that are less commonly affected by the disaster would not have the same prevention's for it. But sometimes, even though the disaster or crisis is not common they still have a huge impact and can be very devastating. So why governments do not create prevention's for those big but not constant disasters? Is it simply because they do not happen constantly? Which lead us to another question, small scale but constant floods, snowstorms and etc... Can be considered a long term disaster if not prevented, or is just a disaster when it has a large scale. If we stop to think some constant rains can be more deadly than one big flood due to a single storm if looked at the long term.


Source Used:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26165335

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/other/documents/naturalhazards.pdf

Politics, People and the Era of Nuclear Energy

Japan and India are quickly moving forward with agreements pertaining to greater cooperation in nuclear energy based on provisions in the previous Indo-US agreement of 2006. India's shift towards nuclear energy has been picking up due to the increasing energy demands of the large population. This growing energy demand however has not dampened the development of opposition to such expansion.  People protesting against the further use and creation of nuclear power plants in India are especially concerned with Japan's involvement due to its recent Fukushima disaster. The interesting aspect of this debate centers on the constructivist perspective. You can clearly see the proliferation of ideas and networks spreading through both India and Japan. Both the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) and the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) have been extremely active in India, condemning the expansion of their nuclear program and the prospect of Indo-Japanese cooperation.  The concept of transparency is also highlighted, a prime example being how the decisions in Japan regarding nuclear energy are made directly by the prime minister and not parliament, all of this maintained behind closed doors. The lack of transparency also plagues India with the example of nuclear regulatory agencies being funded by the groups they are supposed to be regulating. The whole shroud of secrecy surrounding both countries is of serious concern to many people due to the potential of another Fukushima or Chernobyl like event happening. People feel like they have the right to know the truth especially when there is the potential for disaster, and who's to blame them? To me this article supremely highlights the unique power struggle dynamic between the people and those in leadership roles, for it seems those opposed to it are being disregarded and the policies are still being advanced. This shows the weakness of constructivist theory for this particular case. Even in a strong democratic state, like Japan, there seems to be a disconnect between the people and leaders. Though ideas and networks can play a crucial role in politics today, it seems that for the case of Indo-Japanese nuclear cooperation the traditional power of the state has effectively marginalized the voices of the opposition.

http://www.globalissues.org/news/2014/02/01/18182

Should There be a National Natural Disaster Fund?

Hurricanes' Blog #3


I came across an interesting piece of writing while conducting a Google search earlier today, to see what was going on in the world. St.Augustine.com, a Florida news website had been graced with a rather inquisitive and thought provoking letter to the Opinions editor of the site.

The author, Daniel Valone posed the thought of why raising the price of flood insurance in Florida would be a bad idea. With a poor real-estate market already, and many homeowners having a hard time paying the already high cost of insurance, he brought about a good point in doing so. Florida is not the only state to be hit by natural disasters. Yes, Florida will flood and be hit by hurricanes. Raging forest fires will plague California. A tornado will hit the Plains. There is potential for another crazy snowstorm to blanket the East Coast. (Let's bring another snowday to AU :D) Yet, when these things happen, the government is quick to help and get everyone back on their feet. And that is how it should work according to Valone. BUT- instead of just focusing on "flood insurance" for certain states that get hit the hardest by floods like Florida; why not create a national natural disaster insurance fund?


I have to give Valone props because it is a good idea. Yet, I know he is not the only one to have thought of such an idea. I think it brings up an important question of why doesn't the United States have one? Sure, we have plenty of organizations and relief funds that help when disasters hit, but why not a national pool of money? Better yet, is there a reason why something like this ceases to exist? I think it all comes down to responsibility.

We talked a bit in class as to whose "responsibility" it was to be prepared for an impending natural disaster. Whose job is it? The government? The people about to be affected? Whose is to blame when there is not enough preparedness? Or everything goes to ashes? Those are thoughts that shouldn't have to be addressed according to Valone. While natural disasters can be hard to predict, and in theory we should be able to prepare for, wouldn't a national fund be extremely helpful? Insurance rates for high risk areas would be reduced, thus pleasing those who have high insurance rates due to their choice of residence.

What do you guys think, should we be willing to put forth funds into a national disaster fund? Or should we keep things the way they are?

Disaster or Crisis?

Disasters and crises, the definitions are known for being a bit blurry. A large part of differentiating between the two comes to perception. What do you consider a crisis? A disaster?

In Somerset, England flooding has ravaged the landscape. Homes, businesses, entire livelihoods swept away or flooded. It has been almost a month since the flood and many villages are still cut off by water or without power. Prince Charles recently titled it a disaster. While there is not staggering death toll the economic impact has been substantial.

Many people are outraged at how long it has taken for The Environment Agency to respond. Even Prince Charles himself felt sorry for the condition people were living in... a month later... in 21st century Britain. Some have even described it as "third-world".

For years the Environment Agency has dredged the rivers in the area, protecting it from extreme flooding. This year however, the funds were put elsewhere. An academia from the Royal Academy of Engineering even went as far as to say that "retreat has to be considered" when it comes to living in these areas that "we may not be defensible and we cannot afford to defend them".

The media has taken an interesting turn though. More and more articles are moving away from the locals and the physical impact and toward the politics of the recovery. The Prime Minister only stepped in after Prince Charles made a public appearance in Somerset to see the damage. even now some are saying that the PM is only reacting because he knows he must or else be seen poorly in the public eye. The flooding has become a hot topic political issue sure to rear it's head in the coming elections.

The effects of the flooding could have been much worse but they also could have been less. Did the government's mismanagement of the situation turn a flood crisis into a disaster? Is this a disaster? How would a structuralist see the flooding? A behaviorist?

Sources and further reading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26059451
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26028216
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10613389/UK-floods-We-can-protect-towns-or-country-not-both-says-Environment-Agency-boss.html

Are natural disasters increasing?

Because we have mentioned the belief that the frequency of natural disasters have increased over the last years in our class discussions, I did some research and found some articles that discuss this opinion and that provide more information of these events. 

The constant media-reports about natural disasters seem to be telling us that the Earth has gotten more active and dangerous over the last several years. However, can we really assume that natural disasters have been increasing?

The US Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) along with the Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) have been reporting different natural phenomenas, categorizing them as natural disasters when more than ten people die or 100 people are injured, homeless, displaced or evacuated. According to this definition, natural disasters have increased its quantity from 78 in 1970 to 384 in 2004. However, Guha-Sapir, director of CRED, claims that many of these numbers are artificial. Guha-Sapir says that “like in medicine, if you go out into a village and look for cases, you find much more than if you just sit back and let people come to you when they're sick." The growth in media reports, along with advanced communications about natural disasters, the creation of different institutions, and studies about them have made the numbers mentioned in the study appear greater than they really are. 

On the other hand, estimations and studies tell us that two thirds of those numbers between 1970 and now are real, and also, that the hydro-meteorological disasters, such as droughts, tsunamis, hurricanes, typhoons and floods have increased over the past years. Thus, there is a growth in natural disasters even though they are in a smaller proportion than the studies suggested. What is the cause to this increase in hydro-meteorological disasters? It is a combination of natural and man-made factors. People in the last years have increased the likelihood of being affected by natural disasters because of unsafe urbanization or more exposure to risky areas. Klaus Jacob, a research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory explains human-worsened disasters by stating that “as you put more and more people in harms way, you make a disaster out of something that before was just a natural event.”

To better understand why we hear more about natural disasters now than in the past we must acknowledge the combination of different factors: the increasing media coverage, the growth of studies analyzing natural disasters, natural factors as global warming, and the human factor, which places humans to be exposed to more natural disasters. 

These are the links to the articles that I used:

https://disinfo.com/2013/11/examining-natural-disasters/

http://www.livescience.com/414-scientists-natural-disasters-common.html

http://www.inpe.br/crs/geodesastres/conteudo/livros/CRED_2004_Thirty_years_natural_disaster_1974-2003.pdf