Toronto, Canada, October 29, 2005

I read the Wall Street Journal article while on an American Eagle plane on my way to Toronto. I wondered if I should laugh or cry. Here, WSJ, that has not missed an opportunity to acclaim any scheme of drilling for oil, is now providing advice for its oil-shares stock-holders on which islands suffered less from the environmental damage caused by the CO2 emissions that are a consequence from using that oil. The article by Jacob Hale Russell and Jess McCuan, is actually quite good when it describes the damages to islands from the effect of climate change - it includes coral bleaching, sea-shore erosion, hurricanes, depletion of fish, malaria, etc. They are accurate in mentioning that the temperature rise of roughly one degree Fahrenheit globally over the past century may seem small, but tiny changes can set off a chain reaction in the environment that melt glaciers and cause water to expand, making sea level rise. Those rising waters can flood low areas and erode sandy beaches and fragile coasts, actually they can require evacuation of Islands in Tuvalu.

the WSJ wants to do it right and mathematically - so they contacted several statisticians and scientists to quantify the issue, and create - no joke - THE DOW JONES ISLAND INDEX. For good measure, Michael Mastrandrea, a Stanford University researcher, is mentioned by name. Unfortunately the factors used in the creation of the index include also some parameters that are not yet commonly viewed as related to climate change. I am particularly interested in volcanic activity. Actually, as this activity occurs usually where plates meet, I suggested in the past that increased strength of earthquakes, tsunamis, and perhaps even volcanic eruptions may be connected to removal of pressure at spots were there is melting of glaciers or ice at the polar caps regions. I do not know yet the evidence, so I may welcome these parameters if the relationship exists indeed; if not it may obfuscate the presented index - as well political upheavals are not directly related to climate change.

Another comment I must make is that when mentioning hurricanes or typhoons only direct hits of a category 3 or above seem to count. The index does not look at hurricane-force winds that resulted from a landfall at a nearby location. This leads, as an example, to the mention of only one hurricane at the Florida Keys for the 1983-2004 period and disregards the effects of the recent Katrina and Rita events. I think this is unfair favoritism.

The researchers looked at 40 popular vacation islands and looked at 12 different factors in order to rank them by scores.

The winner was Prince Edward Island in the Canadian North Atlantic. This had the lowest risk rating (29 out of 100). The Island averages only 24 degrees Fahrenheit in December so it can hardly be recommended as a warm water winter vacation, even though it has the lowest risk factor.

The complete loser was Sri Lanka (100 out of 100). As we know, the island has been pummeled by disasters from flooding to drought; over 30,000 people died in last winter’s tsunami.

The other nine members of the first ten are according to the Risk Score of this Dow Jones Island Index: Martha’s Vineyard (31 - US North Atlantic); Easter Island (35 - Chile, even though there is an active volcano, without the volcano they may have earned a lower risk score); Curacao (39 - Caribbean, earned the top spot for the Caribbean region); Florida Keys (36 - Caribbean, and please see my comment in a previous paragraph); Bonaire (37 - Caribbean, which earned the comment that its waters are still full with interesting creatures); Grand Cayman Island (37 - Caribbean, even though last fall’s Ivan did serious damage); Crete (38 - Greece, its waters warmed more then any other island among the 40 of this index - this because it is in the Mediterranean basin climate-change highest danger zone, it stands to turn into a semi arid zone); Barbados (38 - Caribbean, the writers somehow thought it relevant to mention that the 1994 UN conference of the SIDS ‘Small Islands Independent States’, created a ‘program of action’ that the writers equated for unknown reasons to me with a plan of action on climate change); and Aruba (39 - Caribbean, that is blessed with a 81 degrees temperature year around and I wonder why they did not rank it higher).

The other nine members of the last ten are according to the Risk Score of this Dow Jones Island Index: Sulawesi (98 - Indonesia, which is loosing its diving spots to coral bleaching); the Dominican Republic (92 - Caribbean, had 2 direct hurricane hits); Cuba (69 - Caribbean, had two direct hurricane hits, is still the home of many endangered species that have already vanished from other islands); Fiji (64 - had 4 direct typhoon hits, a military coup in 2000 and 151 rain-days, is very popular, and it probably is also too Indo-European for the WSJ?); Mauritius (61 - Indian Ocean, had 6 direct landfalls from typhoons in the last 20 years); Guam (60 - Pacific); Puerto Rico (55 - Caribbean, WRI says that 93% of its reefs are threatened - rapid industrialization is destroying the island); Sicily (54 - Italy, its volcano is the big minus); and Bali (52 - Indonesia, the terrorists had here their word at least twice - forget it - that is how tourism is being killed rapidly).

To me, the most relevant comment of this WSJ full page stunt, was about St. John in the US Virgin Islands (41 on the risk score) which experienced this summer and fall the island’s worst known bout of coral bleaching due to record-high water temperatures, the island’s biggest diving operators direct their customers to visit shipwrecks and look for a chance to pet a sting ray, rather then show them the sorry coral spots.