Typhoon Haiyan not about climate change: Column

Bjørn Lomborg | USATODAY

The recent Typhoon Haiyan was terrible. Hitting the Philippines, it killed thousands, because of poverty: flimsy houses that were swept away, inadequate shelters and poor planning.

It is a pattern we know only too well. When a hurricane hits rich Florida, it makes significant damage, but kills few people. When a similar hurricane hits poor Nicaragua, it destroys the economy and kills tens of thousands.

Yet, many of the world's top opinion leaders have not talked about poverty but rather linked Haiyan to global warming, focusing on cutting CO2. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it a climate "wake-up call." World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and British Prime Minister David Cameron both speculated Haiyan was caused by climate change and emphasized the need to cut emissions.

At the ongoing Warsaw climate summit, the Philippine negotiator Naderev Saño stated "climate change will mean more intense tropical storms," and that a climate treaty could fix this. To a thunderous, standing ovation he exclaimed: "We can fix this. We can stop this madness. Right now, right here."

Yet, this connection is wrong and the focus on climate is possibly the worst way to help.

Global warming is real, and there are many good arguments for cutting CO2 effectively. But hurricanes are not one of them.

There is no indication of an increasing number of hurricanes around the Philippines or even globally. The longest comparable, global scientific study "does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major or total hurricanes." Actually, the trend for strong hurricanes around the Philippines has declined since 1950.

Even when measured by total energy of hurricanes, the so-called Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), the Philippines' area is below the norm, even after Haiyan. The Atlantic has had no major hurricanes and the global total ACE is at its lowest since the 1970s. You cannot take Haiyan and claim it is caused by global warming, without -- incorrectly -- claiming that the lack of global hurricanes is also caused by climate change.

Moreover, cutting CO 2 is one of the least effective ways to help. Even if we accept that climate change in the long run will make hurricanes slightly stronger but slightly fewer, cuts would matter little. The European Union's climate policy will cost $20 trillion over the century and yet, it will immeasurably reduce temperatures by 0.1oF.

If we want to help, it is all about poverty. In the short run, it is obviously about securing all the help necessary for the suffering in the Philippines. In the medium term it is about ensuring better shelters, warning systems, evacuation plans and emergency relief. And in the long run, it is about making sure Filipinos emerge from poverty, so they can move from being vulnerable like Nicaraguans to being well-protected like Floridians.

Spending trillions of dollars to do nothing towards these very simple goals is a poor way to help. And using a human tragedy as a vehicle for promoting CO2 cuts is just immoral.

Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. His new book is How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World? A Scorecard from 1900 to 2050.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the opinion front page or follow us on twitter @USATopinion or Facebook.