Reason Foundation

Search Reason

October 2, 2011

Extreme Weather Events Are Killing Fewer People Than Ever Before

The worldwide death rate from weather happenings has dropped over 98 percent since the 1920s

Despite concerns about global warming and a large increase in the number of reported storms and droughts, the world’s death rate from extreme weather events was lower from 2000 to 2010 than it has been in any decade since 1900, according to a new Reason Foundation study. 

The Reason Foundation report chronicles the number of worldwide deaths caused by extreme weather events between 1900 and 2010 and finds global deaths caused by extreme weather events peaked in the decade running from 1920 to 1929, when there were 241 deaths a year per million people in the world. From 1930 to 1939 there were 208 deaths a year per million people. But from 2000 to 2010 there were just 5.4 deaths a year per million people in the world. That’s a 98 percent decline in the weather-related death rate since the 1920s. Extreme weather events were responsible for just .07% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2010.

The extreme weather categories studied in the Reason Foundation report include droughts, floods, wildfires, storms (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, etc.) and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold. 

Comparison of the Essential Air Service Program to Alternative Coach Bus Service

Keeping small communities connected cost-effectively

Shirley Ybarra

This study by Dana Lowell, Tom Curry, Lily Hoffman-Andrews, and Lea Reynolds compares the costs and environmental effects of supporting rural mobility using scheduled inter-city coach bus service to current costs to maintain air links under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. The study, produced jointly by M.J. Bradley & Associates, Reason Foundation, the American Bus Association, Natural Resources Defense Council and Taxpayers for Common Sense, includes 38 EAS communities in the lower 48 states that are within 150 miles of a medium or large hub airport. For the current EAS program, total costs include government subsidies and passenger fares. For the coach bus alternative, total costs include bus operating costs, and the value of passenger time for alternative bus trips that take longer than current EAS-subsidized flights.

For the 38 communities included in the study, current EAS-subsidized flights carry 615,528 one-way passengers annually at a total cost of $131.5 million - an average cost of $427 per passenger round trip. For these routes annual EAS subsidies total $60.8 million - 46% of the cost - and passenger fares total $70.7 million. While some routes require a relatively low subsidy, for others the current subsidy amounts to as much as $1,600 per passenger round trip. This analysis indicates that the same number of scheduled weekly trips between these 38 rural airports and nearby regional hub airports could be provided by coach buses at a total annual operating cost of $33.9 million. Most of the bus trips would take longer than current air flights – if the “cost” to passengers of longer travel time is included it adds an additional $8.0 million to the total cost of the bus alternative.

For the 38 communities studied, total costs for coach bus service average $136 per passenger round trip – this is on average 68% less than the cost of current EAS-subsidized flights. The use of scheduled coach bus service to link these 38 communities to the national air transport system – instead of current EAS-subsidized air service - could save society over $89 million annually. Average savings could be as high as $291 per passenger round trip. Some level of subsidy would likely be required to incentivize coach operators to start new service on most routes, and continuing subsidies might be required on some routes, but projected per passenger bus operating costs on more than half of the routes are lower than current airfares. This indicates that these routes could probably support bus service with no long-term government subsidy; in the long run savings to taxpayers could amount to $50 million or more annually because the cost to operate coach bus service is so much lower than the cost to operate aircraft.

Letter to SEC Regarding Assigned Ratings

An assigned ratings system is well-intentioned, but is highly vulnerable to unintended consequences

Anthony Randazzo

The Reason Foundation welcomes the opportunity to comment on the feasibility of the federal government establishing a system in which a public or private utility or self-regulatory organization assigns nationally recognized statistical rating organizations to determine the credit rating of structured products.

Our understanding is that the purpose of such a system would be to eliminate conflicts of interest that compromised structured finance ratings prior to the recession in 2008-2009 and subsequent economic contraction.

We acknowledge that a system with an assigned ratings procedure would eliminate the need for Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organizations (NRSROs) to market their services to issuers, and would prevent issuers from engaging in "ratings shopping," i.e. selecting the rating agency that has the most lax standards for the securities it issues. Unfortunately, the assigned ratings approach would have to overcome a number of potential problems.

Reason Weekend 2012

Outstanding speakers, stimulating conversations, and a world-class luxury hotel located on the shores of the Caribbean—Reason Weekend 2012 is already shaping up to be an exciting weekend, and you will want to be there!

Please join us February 2 – 5, 2012 at the breathtaking Ritz-Carlton in San Juan, Puerto Rico. You’ll enjoy some of the libertarian community’s most interesting speakers, including John Stossel, and hear from Reason’s analysts and journalists on important policy issues.