Relief convoys, not climate politics, are what those facing up to Alfred need most

As a north Queenslander, I have seen the emergency response to a few cyclones, and it literally brought a tear to my eye, writes scientist Peter Ridd

Cyclone Alfred may well end up being the costliest cyclone in our history by virtue of it hitting a huge population centre.

Various groups who make a living out of climate catastrophism will be drooling at the prospect of smashed and flooded houses.

To them, Alfred is an opportunity.

But the reality is that cyclones are far less of a problem today than they were a century ago. This will come as cold comfort to those who will suffer over the coming days and weeks.

There has been a long history of cyclones in southeast Queensland.

Clayton (R) and Matthew Hoy wade through flood waters surrounding their family home outside Innisfail, 84 kilometres from Cairns, which was destroyed by Cyclone Larry in 2006. (AP Photo/Rob Griffith)

Between 1883 and 1898, twenty-four intense tropical cyclones and extra tropical cyclones impacted the region with at least 200 fatalities.

There is not much evidence that cyclones are getting greatly worse, but there is a plausible argument that a warmer climate could make more energy available to cyclones – about 7% more for every degree increase in temperature.

But even if one accepts the dubious evidence that cyclones are now a bit more intense than 100 years ago, and that this is caused by humans, cyclones are not nearly as dangerous.

First, the Bureau of Meteorology do a remarkable job of predicting the path of cyclones giving people days of warning.

They predicted Alfred would make a sharp right turn and make a beeline towards Brisbane – and they got it dead right.

It shows how far cyclone track prediction has come. Contrast this with Cyclone Mahina, one of the world’s most intense cyclones ever, and by far Queensland’s most intense storm that hit north of Cooktown in 1899.

Tropical Cyclone Tracy was so devastating for Darwin in part because building codes were so lax. Above, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s convoy tours the wreckage.

By the time the warnings were first sent out to shipping, the cyclone had already crossed the coast and killed around 400 people.

Second, the disaster response is something that we do very well in Australia. In the bad old days, you were on your own, or just the help of your neighbours.

Being a north Queenslander, I have seen the emergency response to a few cyclones and it literally brought a tear to my eye.

Convoys of electricity trucks — literally a hundred of them — moving north to sort out Cairns in 2003.

Or convoys carrying dozens of emergency generators travelling to Innisfail after Tropical Cyclone Larry in 2006 and again after Yasi. That level of organisation is taken for granted but it does not happen by accident, and makes a huge difference. It is like the cavalry coming to the rescue.

But the main reason cyclones are far less of a problem nowadays is that our houses are much stronger than 100 years ago. In 1918, a cyclone hit Innisfail and destroyed all but a dozen buildings in a town of thousands.

The incredible destruction was largely due to the fact that houses then were very flimsy.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and National Emergency Management Agency Deputy Coordinator-General, Joe Buffone hold a media briefing in the National Situation Room (NEMA) in Canberra. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Cyclone building codes did not start until after Cyclone Althea cleaned up Townsville in 1971. Even the incredibly intense Cyclone Tracy, that obliterated Darwin in 1974, was made far worse because few of the buildings were built to a code that could withstand a cyclone. ‘Cyclone bolts’ tying down roofs were not mandated, and it was common for the entire top of a high-set house to be blown away leaving only the floor remaining and a terrified family hiding in a car underneath the house.

And this brings me to the final point. Let us say you believe that the warming over the last century is caused by human carbon dioxide. And ignore the fact that big emitters like China, India and USA have NOT committed to reduce emissions. Is it better to adapt to the changes, such as a possibly slightly increased cyclone intensity?

Or should we destroy the economy and pretend we can ‘decarbonise’? Should we fantasise that we can power our steel and aluminium industry using windmills, and that we can run our truck fleet, and mining and agricultural machinery, on batteries?

Our houses are already far stronger than those built even 50 years ago, and adaptation, by upgrading existing homes and updating the codes for new homes is relatively easy. And there is no great rush as climate change, however it is caused, is happening slowly.

But in the meantime, ignore the doom-mongers who circle any disaster like flies around a wound, and spare a thought for the people about to be sweeping floodwater from their house, or salvaging personal treasures from wrecked houses. It would be insensitive to tell them that cyclones were worse 100 years ago.

But for the rest of us, they certainly were.

Peter Ridd is a former professor at James Cook University and an adjunct fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs