Decision-making

• But the numbers tell only half the story; equally significant was the way the votes fell.
• Those voting against the resolution included the United States and four members of the European Union.
• Meanwhile, about 45 members abstained – including 15 members of the EU, plus the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Japan.
• But they have been joined by the leaders of Brazil, South Africa and other Global South nations in taking a firm stand.
• While the U.S. has used the word genocide in relation to Russia’s action in Ukraine, the Biden administration has pointedly said the term doesn’t apply to current events in Gaza.

The Global South’s coming of age

• The growing influence of China and the fallout of the war in Ukraine – in which many Global South countries have remained neutral – has upended international relations.
• And 2023 has been the year that has seen the coming of age of this more assertive Global South.

• In August, Johannesburg hosted a summit of the BRICS group – a bloc that consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – during which 21 countries from across the Global South applied to join.
• In contrast, the Group of Seven leading economies, or G7, represents less than 10% of the world’s population and 30% of the global economy.
• The question is, can the BRICS+ – and more generally the Global South – do likewise given that it includes an array of countries with very different political and economic systems?

Latin America’s pushback

• Historically, many African and Asian nations have tended to support the Palestinian cause – Indonesia does not even recognize the state of Israel.
• But perhaps more surprising has been the strong reaction in Latin America to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Western denialism

• The voting patterns of Western representatives at the U.N. suggest the answer is “no.” In turn, this only adds to the general discontent across the developing world with the current structure of the U.N. Security Council and its lack of representativeness.
• The fact that no country from Africa or Latin America is among the permanent members that enjoy veto power – compared with Western Europe, which is represented by both France and the U.K. – has long been a source of irritation in the Global South.
• Western commentators and analysts from think tanks in London and Washington even contend that the very term “Global South” should not be used – with much of the criticism against the term directed at its alleged imprecision, but also because it would contribute to greater international polarization.
• And no amount of Western denialism will be able to block it.

Jorge Heine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• While Acapulco’s oceanfront high-rises were built to withstand the region’s powerful earthquakes, they had a weakness.
• Since powerful hurricanes are rare in Acapulco, Mexico’s building codes didn’t require that their exterior materials be able to hold up to extreme winds.
• Otis’ powerful winds ripped off exterior cladding and shattered windows, exposing bedrooms and offices to the wind and rain.

I have worked on engineering strategies to enhance disaster resilience for over three decades and recently wrote a book, “The Blessings of Disaster,” about the gambles humans take with disaster risk and how to increase resilience. Otis provided a powerful example of one such gamble that exists when building codes rely on probabilities that certain hazards will occur based on recorded history, rather than considering the severe consequences of storms that can devastate entire cities.

The fatal flaw in building codes

• Building codes typically provide “probabilistic-based” maps that specify wind speeds that engineers must consider when designing buildings.
• Some models may include additional considerations, but these are still typically anchored in known experience.
• Return periods are a somewhat arbitrary assessment of what is a reasonable balance between minimizing risk and keeping building costs reasonable.

How probability left Acapulco exposed

• According to the Mexican building code, hotels, condos and other commercial and office buildings in Acapulco must be designed to resist 88 mph winds, corresponding to the strongest wind likely to occur on average once every 50 years there.
• A 200-year return period for wind is used for essential facilities, such as hospital and school buildings, corresponding to 118 mph winds.

• The probability wind maps for both return periods show Acapulco experiences lower average wind speeds than much of the 400 miles of Mexican coast north of the city.
• Yet, Acapulco is a major city, with a metropolitan population of over 1 million.

Florida faces similiar challenges

• For example, new buildings along most of Florida’s coast must be able to resist 140 mph winds or greater, but there are a few exceptions.
• A 2023 update to the Florida Building Code raised the minimum wind speed to approximately 140 mph in Mexico Beach, the Panhandle town that was devastated by Hurricane Michael in 2018.

Acapulco’s earthquake design weakness

• As a result, the lateral-load-resisting structural systems in tall buildings there are designed to resist seismic forces that are generally larger than hurricane forces.
• However, a drawback is that the larger the mass of a building, the larger the seismic forces the building must be designed to resist.

A ‘good engineering approach’ to hazards

• A better building code could go one step beyond “good science” probabilistic maps and adopt a “good engineering approach” by taking stock of the consequences of extreme events occurring, not just the odds that they will.
• Unfortunately, as I explain in “The Blessings of Disaster,” we will see more extreme disasters before society truly becomes disaster resilient.

Michel Bruneau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• US president Joe Biden has proposed a new US$105 billion (£86.5 billion) national security aid package, including $61 billion for Ukraine.
• While US support for Ukraine still receives bipartisan backing in the Senate, opposition from Republicans in the House of Representatives has, if anything, hardened.
• The speaker of the house is often considered the second most powerful role in US politics and can make or break the president’s agenda.

Power battles

• Capitol Hill (or, more specifically, house Republicans) have been in the throes of a high-stakes power battle, with Ukraine’s defences hanging in the balance.
• What’s obvious is that any closed-door negotiations over Johnson’s speakership involved constant horsetrading over the issue.
• House majority leader (the “number two man” under McCarthy) Steve Scalise separately voted three times for (and three time against) aiding Ukraine.
• The most recent candidate to drop out before Johnson’s selection, the party’s chief whip, Tom Emmer, had previously voted for financing Ukraine.

Funding under threat

• GOP hardliners wanted to “blow up the system,” and halt the flow of dollars to Kiev.
• Washington couldn’t funnel more dollars to Ukraine, or continue to bloats its deficit, when there was pandemonium.
• Yet Democrats who enabled the chaos simply to make the Republican party look bad also showed their true colours.
• Either way, a long-term funding channel for Ukraine is anything but certain.

Thomas Gift does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• Over the past decade alone, they have expanded their range on the continent by more than 25%.
• This resurgence was brought into sharp focus in September 2023 following a controversial statement by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission.
• An examination of Spain’s motivations for protection may provide some insight into what motivates countries to adopt such different approaches to coexistence.

What does coexistence mean?

• Our findings revealed three distinct and, to some extent, conflicting views of what coexistence means and how it should be achieved.
• They saw people as a part of nature and interpreted coexistence as a state where the wolf was controlled to not disrupt pastoral activities.
• They saw coexistence as a state where human activities were controlled so that wolves could roam free.

The politics of wolf conservation

• Podemos, one of the left coalition parties, submitted a proposition for strict wolf protection in 2016 (when they were in opposition) in collaboration with pro-wolf advocacy groups.
• These criteria do not consider how stringent wolf protection measures might affect other cultural or ecological values, like pastoral farming systems.
• Spain’s decision was also influenced by the protectionists’ view of the wolf’s conservation status.
• For example, an assessment submitted to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List in 2018 indicates that the Iberian wolf population is large, stable and slowly expanding.

This nature or that nature?

• Science plays a crucial role in evaluating various policy options and their consequences, such as the effect of an increased wolf population on sheep or deer behaviour.
• That choice depends on what people, livestock and wildlife in a particular place need to live well.
• With this in mind, it is concerning that the pragmatic interpretation is largely overlooked in the debate.
• Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue.