̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - spotlight on risk

Minor volcanic eruptions could ‘cascade’ into global catastrophe, experts warn

fpjl2 — Fri, 06 Aug 2021 09:09:08 +0000

Currently, much of the thinking around risks posed by volcanoes follows a simple equation: the bigger the eruption, the worse it will be for society and human welfare.

However, a team of experts now argues that too much focus is on the risk of massive yet rare volcanic explosions, while far too little attention is paid to the potential domino effects of moderate eruptions in key parts of the planet.

Researchers led by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) have identified seven 'pinch points' where clusters of relatively small but active volcanoes sit alongside vital infrastructure that, if paralysed, could have catastrophic global consequences.

These regions include volcano groups in Taiwan, North Africa, the North Atlantic, and the northwestern United States of America. ̽��ֱ��report is published today in the journal Nature Communications.

“Even a minor eruption in one of the areas we identify could erupt enough ash or generate large enough tremors to disrupt networks that are central to global supply chains and financial systems,” said Dr Lara Mani from CSER, lead author of the latest report.

“At the moment, calculations are too skewed towards giant explosions or nightmare scenarios, when the more likely risks come from moderate events that disable major international communications, trade networks or transport hubs. This is true of earthquakes and extreme weather as well as volcanic eruption.”

Mani and colleagues say that smaller eruptions ranking up to 6 on the 'volcanic explosivity index' – rather than the 7s and 8s that tend to occupy catastrophist thinking – could easily produce ash clouds, mudflows and landslides that scupper undersea cables, leading to financial market shutdowns, or devastate crop yields, causing food shortages that result in political turmoil.

As an example from recent history, the team point to events of 2010 in Iceland, where a magnitude 4 eruption from the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, close to the major 'pinch point' of mainland Europe, saw plumes of ash carried on northwesterly winds close European airspace at a cost of US$5 billion (£3.6 billion) to the global economy.

Yet when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, a magnitude 6 eruption some 100 times greater in scale than the Icelandic event, its distance from vital infrastructure meant that overall economic damage was less than a fifth of Eyjafjallajökull. (Pinatubo would have a global economic impact of around US$740 million {£535 million} if it occurred in 2021.)

̽��ֱ��seven 'pinch point' areas identified by the experts – within which relatively small eruptions could inflict maximum global mayhem – include the volcanic group on the northern tip of Taiwan. Home to one of the largest producers of electronic chips, if this area – along with the Port of Taipei – was indefinitely incapacitated, the global tech industry could grind to a halt.

Another pinch point is the Mediterranean, where legends of the classical world such as Vesuvius and Santorini could induce tsunamis that smash submerged cable networks and seal off the Suez Canal. “We saw what a six-day closure to the Suez Canal did earlier this year, when a single stuck container ship cost up to ten billion dollars a week in global trade,” said Mani.

Eruptions in the US state of Washington in the Pacific Northwest could trigger mudflows and ash clouds that blanket Seattle, shutting down airports and seaports. Scenario modelling for a magnitude 6 eruption from Mount Rainier predicts potential economic losses of more than US$7 trillion (£5 trillion) over the ensuing five years.

̽��ֱ��highly active volcanic centres along the Indonesian archipelago – from Sumatra to Central Java – also line the Strait of Malacca: one of the busiest shipping passages in the world, with 40% of global trade traversing the narrow route each year.

̽��ֱ��Luzon Strait in the South China Sea, another key shipping route, is the crux of all the major submerged cabling that connects China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. It is also encircled by the Luzon Volcanic Arc.

̽��ֱ��researchers also identify the volcanic region straddling the Chinese-North-Korean border, from which plumes of ash would disrupt the busiest air routes in the east, and point out that a reawakening of Icelandic volcanoes would do the same in the west.

“It’s time to change how we view extreme volcanic risk,” added Mani. “We need to move away from thinking in terms of colossal eruptions destroying the world, as portrayed in Hollywood films. ̽��ֱ��more probable scenarios involve lower-magnitude eruptions interacting with our societal vulnerabilities and cascading us towards catastrophe.”

Researchers call for a shift in focus away from risks of 'super-volcanic' eruptions and towards likelier scenarios of smaller eruptions in key global 'pinch points' creating devastating domino effects.

We need to move away from thinking in terms of colossal eruptions destroying the world, as portrayed in Hollywood films

Lara Mani

Bjarki Sigursveinsson

Clouds of ash rising up from the Eyjafjallajökull eruption in 2010

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Governments are failing to understand global catastrophic risks and need to take urgent action, says new report

cjb250 — Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:16:29 +0000

̽��ֱ��plausible global catastrophic risks include: tipping points in environmental systems due to climate change or mass biodiversity loss; malicious or accidentally harmful use of artificial intelligence; malicious use of, or unintended consequences, from advanced biotechnologies; a natural or engineered global pandemic; and intentional, miscalculated, accidental, or terrorist-related use of nuclear weapons.

Researchers from Cambridge’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) today release a new report on what governments can do to understand and inform policy around these risks, which could threaten the global population.

̽��ֱ��likelihood that a global catastrophe will occur in the next 20 years is uncertain, say the researchers, but the potential severity means that national governments have a responsibility to their citizens to manage these types of risks.

Des Browne, former UK Secretary of State for Defence, said: “National governments struggle with understanding and developing policy for the elimination or mitigation of extreme risks, including global catastrophic risks. Effective policies may compel fundamental structural reform of political systems, but we do not need, nor do we have the time, to wait for such change.

“Our leaders can, and must, act now to better understand the global catastrophic risks that are present and developing. This report offers a practical framework for the necessary action.”

Governments must sufficiently understand the risks to design mitigation, preparation and response measures. But political systems often do not provide sufficient incentives for policy-makers to think about emerging or long-term issues, especially where vested interests and tough trade-offs are at play.

Additionally, the bureaucracies that support government can be ill-equipped to understand these risks. Depending on the issue or the country, public administrations tend to suffer from one or more of the following problems: poor agility to new or emerging issues, poor risk management culture and practice, lack of technical expertise and failure of imagination.

̽��ֱ��report provides 59 practical options for how governments can better understand the risks. Ranging from improving risk management practices to developing better futures analysis, to increasing science and research capability, most national governments must take major policy efforts to match the scale and complexity of the problem, say the researchers.

Catherine Rhodes, CSER’s Executive Director, said: “This report gives policy-makers a set of clear, achievable and effective options. Few countries are making efforts to understand these risks, so most governments will be able to draw policy ideas from the report.

“In the UK, the government is ahead of its peers when it comes to conducting national risk assessments, delivering foresight and horizon-scanning and engaging with the academic community. But even it needs new approaches to understand and deal with global catastrophic risks.”

Professor Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal and co-founder of CSER, said: “Global problems require global solutions. But countries must also act individually. Without action, these catastrophic risks will only grow over time, whether it be on climate change, ecothreats, synthetic biology or cyber.

“Governments have a responsibility to act, both to minimise the risk of such events, and to make plans to cope with a catastrophe if it occurred. And those that take the initiative will set a positive example for the rest of the world. Protect your citizens and be a world leader – that decision is available to every country.”

Governments are failing to understand the human-driven catastrophic risks that threaten global security, prosperity and potential, and could in the worst case lead to mass harm and societal collapse, say researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Without action, these catastrophic risks will only grow over time, whether it be on climate change, ecothreats, synthetic biology or cyber

Martin Rees

skeeze (Pixabay)

Flood

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

'Extreme sleepover #18' – rebuilding earthquake-shattered Christchurch

lw355 — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 07:49:39 +0000

At 2.30am I sit with my laptop feeling helpless as I watch video footage of a dust cloud rising around the crumbling cathedral in the city square. An earthquake has hit my hometown of Christchurch, New Zealand, and all I can do is scan the internet for snippets of information. Mild panic rises in my stomach, I have had no news of my family.

I had been woken by a text from a friend but there were no other messages, emails or missed calls. Finally I reach my mum on her mobile phone as she emerges from a central city building. She had spent three hours stuck on the tenth floor with no power, an incessant fire alarm and no safe way out. Firemen arrived to help her and stranded colleagues negotiate the dark internal stairwells that had pulled away from the walls, with water pouring from broken water pipes above.

We speak only briefly to keep the airways free for others, but I at least learn that my immediate family are okay. After the boost of adrenaline, I can’t sleep. A few hours later, feeling a little lost, I set off for rowing training as life around me in Cambridge surreally continues as normal.

That was 2011 and at the time I was completing an MPhil degree in the Engineering Department. Following my degree, I returned to New Zealand to work on the reconstruction of Christchurch, feeling motivated that as an engineer I could contribute towards rebuilding the city.

I experienced the aftershocks (which numbered in the thousands) and became adept at estimating the epicentre through the sound and feel of the shaking. Life was fairly normal living on the western side of the city where there was minimal damage. However, I worked in badly damaged areas in the east, where houses had tilted on their foundations and the roads were rough and potholed from liquefaction damage.

Partway through the year I was offered funding for a PhD back in Cambridge. I saw an opportunity to research the reconstruction as it progressed and to capture insights as to why and how decisions were made. I believed I could continue to make a meaningful contribution, albeit shifting to the role of observer rather than as a direct participant in the recovery process.

My research involved returning to Christchurch for fieldwork each year, interviewing engineers, executives, political leaders and other professionals involved in planning and implementing the reconstruction.

̽��ֱ��initial shift from practitioner to researcher was a personal challenge. I felt I had to prove my relevance to the rebuild effort to those dealing with the stresses and challenges of the process every day. However, my fears gradually dissipated – I was welcomed back and people were happy to spend time with me to reflect on their experiences. Sometimes it was also a chance to vent their frustrations.

I had initially considered conducting multiple case studies around the world, but soon realised the value of a longer-term study in Christchurch to capture changes over time. Also, as a PhD student with limited time and budget, it made sense to work in a region where I had a good understanding of the politics and the culture and a connection to people through shared experience.

Securing interviews with critical decision makers involved planning (sometimes years in the process) and a little luck. During field visits I had an allocated desk at one of the major recovery organisations and attended community and industry events. This meant I could immerse myself in recovery discussions and I had opportunities to join meetings simply because I was in the office at the right time.

On my final visit I met with the central government minister in charge of the recovery. We discussed major decisions made by the government in response to the earthquakes. This included the establishment of new legislation, the creation of new organisations to lead the recovery and the red zoning of residential land, where approximately 8,000 residential properties now sit empty as their future is debated.

One of the many challenges of the recovery was the need to create new organisations to lead the process and to interpret ambiguous policy statements regarding funding commitments. Although there were long processes of negotiation (establishing clear funding arrangements, for example, took years), a pre-defined, prescriptive approach could have been equally unsatisfactory.

Five years into the recovery, there is a lingering question over how to be better prepared in the future. There is a need to create policies that provide both appropriate clear guidance and flexibility to respond to specific circumstances. This remains the subject of much debate in New Zealand. Despite the country’s relatively advanced system for emergency management, it was caught off-guard by a large earthquake in Christchurch.

My research has shown that while post-disaster reconstruction may be considered an opportunity to rebuild more resilient infrastructure, many potential opportunities may be excluded. Contributing factors include financial constraints, limits in scope of organisations involved and the inherent challenge of introducing change to communities, particularly in the time-constrained context of recovery.

With a better understanding of such factors, we can gain better insight into the effectiveness of different decisions and subsequent pathways for recovery. Unfortunately, with natural disasters like earthquakes, there is no prevention; there is only preparation for the next time disaster strikes.

Kristen was primarily funded through a Cambridge International Scholarship from the Cambridge Trusts. She also received small grants from the Earthquake Commission in New Zealand, the Department of Engineering, Corpus Christi College and the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Her PhD was supervised by Professor Peter Guthrie.

Kristen MacAskill describes how an earthquake in her hometown served to influence her career as an engineer.

Houses had tilted on their foundations and the roads were rough and potholed from liquefaction damage

Kristen MacAskill

Martin Luff

A badly damaged house in North New Brighton, Christchurch, New Zealand

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike