Slashdot Mirror
Aussie City Braces For Worst Flood In 118 Years
aesoteric writes "As parts of the Australian state of Queensland either experience or prepare for the worst floods to ravage the state in over 100 years, Australia's techies have taken it upon themselves to keep communications services on as the crisis unfolds. One man is mirroring flood information from a faltering Brisbane City Council website, and others have opened WiFi channels in their neighbourhood whilst mobile signal gets choked. But there is major damage to telco networks — at least one major fibre link has been severed by flood waters, telephone exchanges have been knocked offline and cell towers put on battery or generator back-up (or offline altogether). On a sombre note, the floods have claimed 10 lives, including children, and 78 people are still missing after facing a torrent of water up to 8 metres (26 feet) high."
Thats not really a very good comparison, Australia has one of the lowest population densities on the planet, even the cities aren't anywhere near as dense as those in places like Indonesia and Bangladesh. Comparing just the sheer # of casualties isn't a very good way to judge disaster preparedness per se.
Monstar L
Very true. Australia is a first world country with good warning systems etc. so you would expect death tolls to be lower than in developing nations. (Having said that, most of the '78 missing' are unfortunately likely to be dead too - the flooding in Toowoomba was so quick that people were washed away before they knew what was happening and may have ended up many, many miles downstream, so it will not be until the water subsides that the true toll will be known).
There's one other thing about the low death toll that has nothing to do with preparation though. Australia is simply not as densely populated as the places you hear about with the multi-thousand death tolls. It's a huge, US-sized continent, with a tiny population. So just due to pure probability, most natural disasters affect rural areas and small towns. Casulaties are therefore usually low.
That's about to change though - the water is now heading out towards the coast, directly through Brisbane. Unlike the other places affected, this is a large, multi-million-person city. Now the flooding there will be a gradual 'river flood' over the next few days (not a flash flood like in Toowoomba), so people do have adequate time to get themselves to safety. But the ~impact~ of it will be immense just due to the fact it is hitting one of Australia's rare densely populated areas. I hope we get away with minimal casualties, but the economic cost will be staggering: so many roads, cars, bridges, telephone poles, signs, bits of telecomms infrastructure and all the other trappings that go with a large city will be washed away. It will be enough to put at least a $15 billion dent in the economy. And that's before we consider the private cost to individuals: it is expected ~9000 homes will be submerged in Brisbane by Thursday. Many of these people won't have flood insurance.
I was stationed in Biloxi, MS during Katrina and the comm there was terrible. Of course the first thing to go were the phone switches, which made everyone else panic... Funny thing is we had internet the whole time. I think today with the advances in smartphones, the lack of a phone wouldn't have been a huge issue if we could have kept a wi-fi signal up. Good thinking from the Aussies...
The Copper Tribe - Office Software Solutions
Apart from being a rich state within a rich country: Do they deserve donation money - or is this a classic case of reap what you sow - privatizing profits and socializing losses? Australia and especially conservative Queenslanders are amongst the staunchest climate change denialists out there (from link: "There's been a big swing back towards climate change denialists..."). Further, Queensland is a massive coal exporter - and more than happy to fuel dirty-coal burning both in Australia or at export sites the world over, all to make a quick buck. The costs of this flood will be minuscule compared to the Queensland coal industries profits:
In 2009, the [Queensland] state’s 52 coal mines produced a record 195 million tonnes of coal, generating $33.2 billion in export revenue. Queensland is a major player in the international coal market, exporting 168 Mt of coal in 2009 that accounted for 20% of the global trade. The industry generated $3.22 billion in coal royalties, accounting for 9% of the total income of the Queensland Government for the 2008-09 financial year.
Australian media is divided up amongst a few powerful players (Murdoch included) that don't want any meaningful public debate of climate change. For example most Australians are completely unaware of Australia complacency in the farce that is the "Copenhagen accord" on climate change as exposed by Wikileaks
"The coal industry is Queensland’s leading contributor to climate change, amounting to around 394 million tonnes (Mt) of greenhouse gas emissions per year. These emissions are 2.5 times the combined domestic emissions for the entire state, which stood at 160 Mt in 2008, including stationary energy, transport, fugitive emissions, industrial processes, agriculture, waste, and land use, land use change and forestry. Additionally, the mining, processing and transportation of coal contributes enormously to greenhouse gas production.
The Queensland Government’s commitment to coal expansion has the direct consequence of reducing our ability to prevent climate change. The 2010-11 budget, along with the current $700 million expansion of the coal industry, commits an extra $18 million for an "...exploration program to develop major new resource provinces". In comparison, it only provides $47 million for investment in renewable energy initiatives."
Perhaps Queensland voters need to vote in politicians with a more balanced view on climate change at the next elections, rather than siding with the coal industries take?
Yeah unfortunately, although I'm Australian and we definitely have extremes in this country, the US midwest has us beat in any "rapid weather change" contest, by a long long way. The extremes in Australia can be just as extreme in magnitude ... but they don't ~change~ as quickly as in North America.
Australia is comparatively insulated from sharply contrasting airmasses meeting each other because we are an island, and there is nothing but ocean between us and the Antarctic. So polar airmasses making their way from the Antarctic up to Australia are considerably moderated and warmed by the ocean before they get to us. Contrast America which has solid land all the way up to the arctic, which doesn't provide much warming (especially when snowcovered in winter) and thus allows airmasses to remain colder for longer as they penetrate southwards. So you can see day by day temperature fluctuations in America that are significantly more severe than in Australia.
Thing is, Australia also has the highest urbanisation rate, with 90% of our population in cities. Floods rarely kill people in the country, but would be a colossal disaster in the city. Fortunately, almost all of our cities are on the coast and flood waters simply run off into the sea.
Now, when the sea levels rise, that's another story altogether...
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Do you think that Gandhi, your namesake, would approve of you purposefully trying to cause a fight?
Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding. ~Gandhi
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Not if you compare to about anywhere in the USA outside of Al Gore's office. We get that reputation from a few loonies in an protectionist Agrarian Socialist party that was so low on members it has ended up attempting to merge with a city based conservative party with a heavy emphasis on uncontrolled free market capitalism. I don't think they'll be doing much more than infighting for a very long time.
Coal, sugar, beef, bananas and pineapples is about all we produce and coal is where the majority of the money is. The coal industry really pays most of the taxes. Thus the government while not denying climate change is stuck in the position where they are addicted to taxes on coal and don't want to do anything to lose that money. Most of the coal actually burnt in the state goes into the state government owned power stations so a tax on consumed carbon becomes the silly situation of a government putting a new tax on itself. It's a tiger by the tail. The only alternatives for government at the moment are flat out batshit insane climate deniers within the group I mentioned about that is too busy with it's own infighting over opposed ideologies to do anything constructive.
Anyway, the street is starting to fill up with water and high tide is still an hour away so it's time to move the car unless I want to risk it bumping against the floorboards.
Try and understand the scale of what you're saying. People in Brisbane aren't building below sea level, they aren't building straw houses in hurricane territory. The freaky flooding that occurs no one could have predicted. Have a look at the warning. Now note that the low lying areas of Brisbane which were evacuated were done so as a precaution due to a flood level of a few meters. This impacts only a few minor riverside premises. The Wivenhoe dam was built to protect us and it has done a wonderful job.
Now have a look at Ipswich. The flood gauge is expected to peak at 20meters. Let me repeat that for you. The river is expected to be TWENTY METRES higher than it's normal level. So tell me where do you think it is safe to build? How high / far away from a river?
I know lets build in Toowoomba, a town that until yesterday was on level 5 water restrictions (120L per person per day, no watering of gardens, no washing of cars). A town that is built near the great dividng range, a mountainous area way above sea level, and is nowhere near a major river. Today it's totalled.
This isn't a case of stupid town planning. It's a natural disaster, unprecedented even in our flood prone history.