What Would a good reaction to a Natural Disaster Look Like?
One thing that I’ve been thinking about recently is what a good response would look like for a large natural disaster. We’ve mostly been learning about terrible responses to disasters that prioritize the rich and leave the poor rebuilding without support for years after the disaster. As we’ve seen time and time again, government officials often make empty promises while doing nothing. To be sure, cleaning up after a disaster like a hurricane or a tornado is extremely difficult even in the best of circumstances. While there are many examples of terrible responses, it’s more difficult to find good ones. But what would that look like? What should officials strive for and citizens expect after a disaster?
One example of a good response to a natural disaster was the tornado that hit Joplin, MO in 2011. This response was discussed in a 2017 Vox article. This tornado caused billions of dollars in destruction and destroyed or damaged 7,500 homes. While all natural disasters are different, the rebuilding processes are similar in that they involve almost all if not all aspects of the survivor’s lives. Houses must be rebuilt, hospitals reopened, roads fixed, and places for the survivors to stay afterward must be found. One challenge in these situations is often the huge amount of quick planning and organization that must go into it while also serving a lot of people (Scott).
This level of organization is one area where Joplin really excelled, Scott writes. They didn’t have a single chain of command when it came to rebuilding. Instead, local experts in different areas led the rebuilding effort. One person, like a governor or president, didn’t oversee everything. Instead, the federal government provided aid when needed but not much else and left the rebuilding to the local experts. In addition, when hurdles came up, officials worked together to create solutions. Overall, these efforts were led by the people, centered around their needs, and were communal (Scott).
Scott, Dylan. “A Perfect Hurricane Harvey Response Is Impossible.” Vox, Vox, 29 Aug. 2017, www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/29/16219788/hurricane-harvey-recovery-joplin.
I think it's especially interesting how you point out that politicians were not leading the cleanup and rebuilding process because they have no expertise in that area. I agree that they shouldn't lead the charge, but as public servants, they should absolutely be helping out where they can. I think it's time we start holding our politicians to higher standards.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting how the level of effectiveness came down to WHO was leading the response. Since the people leading the response had closer and more direct ties to the communities they were helping, they were more involved and passionate, and thus, more effective. Right now we are placing all of our hopes on problems to be fixed on a national scale, but based on this example you gave, I don't know if that's practical. But I agree with politicians, we shouldn't give up on holding the nation accountable. Politicians must do their part.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points you've made in your post, and with the comments above mine, about the fact that the cleanup after any natural disaster should be evenly delegated to the people who actually know what they're doing, and not a photo op for politicians who might be better suited working behind the scenes. Not to say politicians don't certainly have their own part in reparations, but their focus should be in organization and fundraising, not necessarily in the work itself.
ReplyDeleteWe've been focusing so much on bad responses to natural disasters and why they're bad, it's really interesting to see a different response. I like how you dissect why these responses worked, like when you discussed Joplin not having a single change of command and that experts were put in charge. It's also important to note that the government was still involved and provided aid, they did not leave all the work for someone else, but simply let others take charge.
ReplyDeleteYou asked a good question in this post, and I agree that we see disappointing and unethical responses to natural and unnatural disasters alike all too often. I think that it's interesting that one of the notable differences between the event you discuss and the norm is that the government had pretty much zero involvement in the process. I don't know what this says about the government, but I doubt it's an unreasonable assumption to say that they could learn a lot from the citizens about how to do their job correctly.
ReplyDeleteI like how you bring up the importance of allowing people of different expertise to lead instead of a general group who may not be qualified to do so. This is a great idea when these people are able to get proper aid and funding from the government. The people who are local know the land the best and they know their city better anyone else so I think it is a great idea to let them lead the cleanup efforts.
ReplyDelete