Wow. According to the Beeb, only a few dozen people were even hurt and nobody was killed during the cyclone that hit the northeast, and everybody’s in shelters, nobody’s short of food or water, and they’re already starting to clean up.
What I’d like to know is:
This area is full of banana plantations, which usually means illegal or at least poor workers nearby in substandard housing, trailers or shacks. How did the government go in, find those people, and evacuate them safely? The houses seem to have been as badly hit as Mississippi’s were, roofs gone, etc.
Only 50,000 homes are without power–how is the electrical grid so sturdy, or is it just that it’s sparsely populated there?
A high percentage of the dead in New Orleans, it’s turning out, were elderly, and some of them, neighbors recall, refused to leave familiar surroundings, pets, or property. Many were also too obese or sick to be moved easily. Were the evacuation orders in Australia mandatory, and did the police have the right to forcibly remove people? I can’t imagine the percentage of stubborn old coots or worried property owners is much lower down under. And I am amazed that the Aboriginal slums were evacuated as well, as efficiently as anyplace else.
I’m also amazed that no tourists were hurt, even by flying debris, going out to see the storm. Also no looting, no disorder, etc. It’s like Canada! How did they manage it? I always thought there was a strong element of drinking and rowdy youth culture that might peek out a little during times like these.
At any rate, I’m delighted that the storm seems to have had such a low human toll. The PM said that they had learned from Katrina and behaved themselves. What can we learn from Australia?
Also don’t live below sea level next to a major body of water. In every hurricane I remember with loss of life almost all come from flooding. There are the few unlucky ones who are under the wrong tree but that is not the majority of casualties.
1/ In Australia banana plantations are not generally associated with illegal and poor workers. We don’t really have the underclass that the US has.
2/ It’s just sparsely populated there.
3/ I’m not sure on this one. I don’t think evacuation was as extensive as for Katrina. Also, we are talking about rural or semi-rural areas and small towns. I suspect there is a different attitude to being told to evacuate to a local hall (amongst friends and neighbours) to being told to move into a football stadium with 10,000 strangers. There are no large Aboriginal slums in the relevant areas.
4/ Tourists would have been in shelters. There were locals hurt who stayed in their homes. I think looting and disorder are phenomena associated with disaffected city folk. They are not associated with semi rural areas. There is a strong element of drinking and rowdy youth culture associated with Australian rural and small town youth. However that is what you do on a Saturday night. Not what you do after a cyclone.
Overall I agree though that it amazing no one was killed. In 1974 Cyclone Tracy wiped out Darwin and 65 people were killed. I can understand that things have improved since then, but to have no deaths is amazing.
Australia does not have as large a population of illegal immigrants and poor workers as the United States has. This is partly because Australia’s borders are far harder to cross (it has no land borders for a start), and partly because Australia has a long tradition of protecting the rights of workers – a strong trade union movement, and federal and state laws that have been pretty even-handed in settling industrial disputes. So the people working in the banana plantations would get paid well by US standards, and be able to afford better housing, cars, etc.
I would have thought Cyclone Tracy would have been enough, even though it was a long time ago. I’ve seen documentaries on it several times here in the UK.
I guess another factor is that access to transportation was probably better than it was in NY, and evacuees would have been pretty much guaranteed a friendly welcome wherever they went.
I don’t understand!? I’ve worked in many offices that were wired with Cat 5. No big deal at all. I mean, gigabit ethernet connection can bit a little iffy, but it’s not like that’s gonna kill you!
Huh? Oh…never mind…[/Litella]
"The U.S. Saffir-Simpson scale that we are familiar with, the strength of a storm is based on the sustained winds, not the gusts.
“Tropical Cyclone Larry at landfall had 118 mph sustained winds, which made it a low-end Category 3 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale–Category 3 sustained wind speeds range from 111 to 130 mph.”
Also, this cyclone had a modest sea surge. Under 10 feet, IIRC, versus 20-30 feet for a Cat 5 hurricane in the US.
The supermarket across the road is charging $4.98 per kg. This is a noticeable jump on the prices a few days ago, which were more like $2.50 per kg. The effects of the cyclone are already being felt, it would appear.
Australia doesn’t allow the importation of bananas.
In the southern U.S., bananas run about $0.40 - $0.60 per pound (prices will be higher in some other areas). Multiply those figures by 2.2 to get price per kg and we get a range of $0.88 - $1.32 per kg.
The only thing we have to figure in now is the exchange rate.
The news last night predicted that bananas would be up to $7.00AUD / kg by next week.
That’s a lot for a bendy fruit.
Of course, the banana farmer (say that quickly 3 times) doesn’t get the additional profits.
The retailers and wholesalers do.
By now, the bananas have already been sold off the plantation, so no more profit for them.
So if we take the high end cost of bananas in the US ($1.32 kilo), the equivalent price in Australia should be $A 1.83.
If bananas normally cost $A 2.50, then Australian citizens are actually subsidizing the banana growers by at least $A .67 for each kilo of bananas they buy.
IMHO I think its outrageous that the Australian government forces its citizens to pay this premium for bananas when all they would have to do to lower the price would be to allow banana imports into the country. I thought Australia was a capitalist country.
Sure the local growers would take a hit, but if Australians wanted to buy local bananas, they could, but at least they would have a choice.
Mangosteen, do you happen to know of a country that allows the unimpeded import of everything, with no protectionist tariffs?
If you are in favor of unrestricted free trade I can respect that, but it seems to me that you’re unfairly singling out Australia in this regard. The US certainly places restrictions on impoted goods and produce.
The nominal reason bananas are not allowed into Australia is because there are a number of diseases of bananas that are not found in Australia which might get into Australia if imports were allowed.
I’d say more, but politics and GQ don’t mix. Go start a GD if you want to discuss agricultural protectionism more, Mangosteen. You could call it “I thought the US was a capitalist country…”
