Rocking New Zealand's World

By now, you will probably have heard about the 7.0 magnitude earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. Actually, it was 44km off the coast of Christchurch, but the city was still rocked by the event (rocked in a bad way). Despite the financial damage, there have been no fatalities reported. Approximately one hundred people have been treated for bruises, scratches and minor head injuries. There was some minor looting immediately after the quake happened, but police soon got it under control.

Just for a moment, think back to when Haiti had their earthquake, which also had a magnitude of 7.0. Hundreds of people were hurt or killed in the quake and hundreds more met the same fates afterwards because of the violence and disease that broke out afterwards. What's different about these two events?

Essentially, the difference is the countries in which they happened. New Zealand has more stringent regulations regarding construction, which makes the buildings more structurally secure. In addition, there is a decent public health service in New Zealand, and the people are, on average, wealthier (the average per capita annual income in New Zealand in 2003 was US$21,120, compared to Haiti's US$1,630). The lack of abject poverty in New Zealand is essentially the only difference between the two events - why the looting was easily controlled, why there were so few injuries, why outbreaks of disease are unlikely in the coming days.

So, in conclusion, do we agree that the best way to avoid being killed in a major earthquake is not to live far away, but to have money? This is basically what it all comes down to - life is better for the Haves, rather than the Have Nots. This is why in the re-build of Haiti, money needs to be invested in infrastructure in order to prevent another earthquake becoming another catastrophe that the international community is called on to fix.