Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mitigation of Dangers from Natural and Anthropogenic HazardsMitigation Economics

Mitigation of Dangers from Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards: Mitigation Economics [In theory, mitigation is possible for many natural and anthropogenic hazards. In practice, however, the cost of mitigation to a good extent or to the maximum extent possible is great. It is beyond the means of many local, regional, and national governments in the low and lower middle income countries to support. Given adequate funding, the impacts of several natural and anthropogenic hazards and the events they may trigger can be mitigated to greater or lesser degrees, for example, by early warning systems (prediction), by barriers, by stringent enforced building codes (prevention). By bringing about a rapid as possible response to injury, sickness, and death (preparedness), and by the rapid repair of damage, reconstruction of destroyed facilities, and return to economic normality. However, the economic inequality among nations, and within national boundaries, plus a nation’s priorities may prevent the adoption of very costly programs to minimize dangers to citizens and reduce property loss. In this case, there should be an efficient and prioritized use of resources that are available in order to minimize the dangers posed by a hazard. Indeed, the United Nations initially estimated that assisting lower income nations to mitigate the impacts for global warming alone would initially require US$100 billion with an additional US$400 billion necessary for full adaptation to global warming/climate change. The United Nations expects such funds to come from public and private sectors, bilateral and multilateral sources, and alternate sources of financing. The basis for the financing would be an international carbon tax (mainly from developed and selected developing nations), an international transportation and commerce tax, and a worldwide reduction in energy subsidies, a process currently being applied in many countries. For example, in Argentina, April 2014, there was a 20 % reduction in natural gas subsidies that saved the government US$1.6 billion. Similarly, in 2014/2015, Bangladesh followed an IMF mandate and slashed fuel subsidies that saved the country over US$600 million [1]. Overall, energy subsidies in 2013 totaled $548 billion with more than half of this sum to oil products. In lieu of parts of these sources or added to them, this writer believes that the United Nations should consider a global Mitigation/Adaptation Tax (MAT) to help low- and lower middle-income countries to adapt to global warming/climate change, similar to the VAT applied by many nations to generate funding for their programs. Those who spend more will pay a larger tax (mainly in developed or industrialized societies), and those who spend less will contribute to their own security by making a smaller but proportional contributions to help fund their own mitigation and adaption programs.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Mitigation of Dangers from Natural and Anthropogenic HazardsMitigation Economics

Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/mitigation-of-dangers-from-natural-and-anthropogenic-hazards-VI1QQ6fQMF

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
ISBN
978-3-319-38874-8
Pages
95 –99
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-38875-5_18
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[In theory, mitigation is possible for many natural and anthropogenic hazards. In practice, however, the cost of mitigation to a good extent or to the maximum extent possible is great. It is beyond the means of many local, regional, and national governments in the low and lower middle income countries to support. Given adequate funding, the impacts of several natural and anthropogenic hazards and the events they may trigger can be mitigated to greater or lesser degrees, for example, by early warning systems (prediction), by barriers, by stringent enforced building codes (prevention). By bringing about a rapid as possible response to injury, sickness, and death (preparedness), and by the rapid repair of damage, reconstruction of destroyed facilities, and return to economic normality. However, the economic inequality among nations, and within national boundaries, plus a nation’s priorities may prevent the adoption of very costly programs to minimize dangers to citizens and reduce property loss. In this case, there should be an efficient and prioritized use of resources that are available in order to minimize the dangers posed by a hazard. Indeed, the United Nations initially estimated that assisting lower income nations to mitigate the impacts for global warming alone would initially require US$100 billion with an additional US$400 billion necessary for full adaptation to global warming/climate change. The United Nations expects such funds to come from public and private sectors, bilateral and multilateral sources, and alternate sources of financing. The basis for the financing would be an international carbon tax (mainly from developed and selected developing nations), an international transportation and commerce tax, and a worldwide reduction in energy subsidies, a process currently being applied in many countries. For example, in Argentina, April 2014, there was a 20 % reduction in natural gas subsidies that saved the government US$1.6 billion. Similarly, in 2014/2015, Bangladesh followed an IMF mandate and slashed fuel subsidies that saved the country over US$600 million [1]. Overall, energy subsidies in 2013 totaled $548 billion with more than half of this sum to oil products. In lieu of parts of these sources or added to them, this writer believes that the United Nations should consider a global Mitigation/Adaptation Tax (MAT) to help low- and lower middle-income countries to adapt to global warming/climate change, similar to the VAT applied by many nations to generate funding for their programs. Those who spend more will pay a larger tax (mainly in developed or industrialized societies), and those who spend less will contribute to their own security by making a smaller but proportional contributions to help fund their own mitigation and adaption programs.]

Published: Jun 24, 2016

Keywords: Mitigation Activity; Lower Middle Income Country; Mitigation Project; Energy Subsidy; Reconstruction Cost

There are no references for this article.