Climate Change and Hurricane Matthew
Here’s a fun little challenge you may want to take. Tune into some of the non-stop coverage of Hurricane Matthew, and count how many times climate change is mentioned. I’ll give you a warning: don’t hold your breath. That’s because it’s almost never discussed. There’s very little willingness among the mainstream media to recognize that climate change is in the process of causing extreme weather events.
There’s a special irony here as well. Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, the state that is situated to bear the greatest brunt of extreme weather events, is a climate change denier, and receives enormous amounts of funding from the Koch brothers. In other words, he doesn’t represent the interests of the people of Florida; he represents the interests of the fossil fuel industry.
Then, you may want to ask yourself why climate change has not been the subject of even one question in either of the first two debates. Whether it will appear in the next two, remains to be seen, but it’s extremely conspicuous in its absence.
As I often say, neither the science nor the economics of renewable energy scare me. The politics, by contrast, scares me to death.
Although it is irresponsible for candidates to avoid mentioning climate change, the reason is clear. Almost certainly they would lose more votes than they would gain by mentioning climate change, even if funding their campaigns were not an issue.
Frank I am not sure that they would directly lose votes. Most Americans believe in Climate Change with a solid block believing it is a crisis issue. http://www.alternet.org/environment/gop-presidential-candidates-climate-change-tricky-business
They would likely lose support of the big pockets unding their campaign. So we could once again say candidates beholding to big money or conservative politics are therefore influenced by the money and the politics and not the voters. Unfortunately that seems to include both major candidates.
Essentially, the election is “rigged” to deny voters. Which is a different thing than saying that the “we the people” are misinformed or have some inability to understand… as a group. Where we do have a more significant divide is between people who believe the system is broken and those who believe it is working as it should. This divide may be highly coolated with economic benefits and suffering under the present system. Because climate change affects generations rather than the next quarter the economic effects are not as clear and it is more likely that the lack of political will not be viewed as evidence of a broken system.
For those who make this connection there is good reason to be concerned about the politics of climate change.
Breath,
It’s not that simple. For example, the majority of American want effective gun control, but because the NRA members will never vote for a politician who supports gun control and other voters see other issues as also important, politicians would lose votes if they supported gun control. Climate change is similar.
A minority of one-issue people can greatly affect the political system.
Frank I am not sure I have caught your intended meaning. If you believe I have misunderstood I look forward to your clarification.
I believe that the NRA is primarily funded and beholding to large gun manufacturers. I doubt the NRA membership seeks to avoid or de-fund any study about the safety of guns in the home.
As with climate change it is not a group of people trying to protect their rights but a group of companies trying to protect its profits that changes the political dynamic.
As with climate change if companies and lobbyists were prevented from providing any financial incentive to politicians and if the political playing field was funded by other more transparent and equal means, influence might be reduced. (Or at least shifted to the population rather than the government.) But no one in power really wants that. It is not how the game is played.
“A minority of one issue people” can affect the political system, but it requires a massive concerted effort by a cohesive group or lots of money to buy influence. A large company tends to be a cohesive group with concentrated decision making, sufficient funds and a willingness to spend. Government influence is just a economical investment for large companies to secure profits.
“We the people” tend to be a diverse group with only temporary cohesive interests, with less disposable income, and less inclined to give it toward changing government. For the average American counter lobbyists are an out of pocket cost to protect rights.
For climate change, it is becoming increasingly clear, as with other issues, that there is a choice (political battle) between the rights of “we the people” to enjoy freedom or the rights of specific companies to enjoy profits. For several centuries we have grown the country by advocating profits over individual freedoms. We had the physical space and resources to make it work. A question we are now presented is if we are able or will continue to do the same. Climate change is a direct result of favoring profits. An ultimate solution will necessarily include changing our social priorities.
“correlated”
Another interesting site: http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/03/congress-climate-deniers/
Craig,
I realize that the reason I’m about to advance may sound to you like ‘heresy’, but outside of the relatively small world of those who see the effects of climate change in every event, not matter how irrelevant, the rest of the populace dislike politicians politicizing natural disasters.
The planet has been experiencing extreme weather events, often random and inexplicable, since the planet began.
Claiming droughts, hurricanes, storms etc, are all caused by AGW are about as scientifically accurate and useful, as the ancient Druids blaming the wrath of the Gods, or the displeasure by the “spirit of the Earth Mother” !
It’s not only irritating, but when parroted by smugly sanctimonious advocates, bring disrepute to the entire environment movement.
If the extreme weather events seem more ferocious, or occurring more, less exciting but more logical explanations should be considered.
1) People are more interested and aware of extreme weather events.
2) There is far more media (especially social media ) coverage on a global scale. Remote events come into a person living room, as if they were occurring in the next county.
3) Greater population, means more infrastructure and destruction of stuff interesting to humans.
Point scoring about “climate change” when natural disasters are occurring, is just plain bad manners.
I have to laugh. What you’re saying here is echoed by by the few remaining climate change deniers everywhere. “The climate has been changing for billions of years.” Yes, I’ve heard that one. 🙂 You’re normally a bit more inventive.
I’m wondering how hot it needs to get before this pathetic refrain goes away.
Craig,
Let’s get something quite clear. I’m not ‘denying’ climate change, or the responsibility of reducing the percentage of man made contributions.
However, blaming every weather event, on “climate change” is not only disingenuous, but annoyingly absurd ! Worse still is seeking to use the tragedy experiences by the victims of these events for political gain, is not only counter-productive but downright offensive.
It also confuses the credibility of real climate change information.
In my own part of the world, we have just experienced a huge storm in the State of South Australia. An earnest young Green Party politician advanced the same nonsense as you are advocating, claiming smugly that the storm and it’s tragic consequences were the results of Climate Change, and employing the statement, ” the proof is there for all to see, this is the worst storm in more than 60 years!”.
His mostly sympathetic clapped eagerly , until one (who hadn’t read the script) asked, “why did it happen 60 years ago ?”
( South Australia has long history of far more ferocious storms recorded over the past 200 years.)
That’s what separates ‘real’ scientists, from advocates ! No serious scientist would confuse a weather event, as proof of “global Climate Change”.
If the City of New York were hit by a blizzard that buried the city up to the third floor level and turned steel brittle, you would claim this was proof of climate change, but it would only be repeating the extreme conditions of 1888.
It’s important that we do not create disbelief, or have all the hard work of countless scientists discounted, in a deluge of sensationalist advocacy.
Leave the wild claims to Donald Trump !
I’m also amused by your accusation of bad manners. It’s hard to understand how that can be applied to echoing what our scientists are constantly telling us, i.e., that climate change is causing more frequent and more intense storms.
It’s also funny to me that the “bad manners” allegation is coming from you, a man whose life’s work, as far as I can tell, is pushing back against virtually everything I write; that actually could be construed as a bit impolite.
Craig,
The reference to ‘bad manners” was not a reference of any behaviour toward me, but a lack of respect for the victims of the events, and a lack of respect for the scientists whose credibility is damaged by the sensationalized and exaggerated claims of advocates.
I believe environmentalists must strive extra hard to increase the credibility of information, and be first to counter excessive advocacy. If not, the general public will become inured ,and ignore everyone who cries “Wolf” !
I don’t doubt that climate change is resulting in more frequent storms and more severe storms. However, that does not make it reasonable to point to one specific storm and attribute it to climate change.
Perhaps a good analogy is cancers caused by radiation exposure. When a group of people is exposed to increased radiation, the incidence of cancer is increased. However, because some of them would have got cancer anyway, there is no proof that specific cancers were caused by increased radiation. Some were and some were not, but it is impossible to distinguish one from the other. Similarly, some hurricanes probably would not have occurred without climate change, but some would have occurred anyway. It is impossible to distinguish one from the other.
Many people intuitively understand this and will be put off by those who assert that a specific storm was the result of climate change.
I hope that I have adequately clarified the matter.
Hi Frank,
“Many people intuitively understand this and will be put off by those who assert that a specific storm was the result of climate change
I hope that I have adequately clarified the matter.”.
Perfectly ! 🙂
Yes, that clarifies it nicely. And you’re right; even if the world gets 8 degrees C hotter than its pre-industrial average, and we have a constant barrage of devastating storms, there will STILL be no way to blame any single one on global warming.
At the end of the day, however, I’m not sure how important that is. To stay with your analogy, it’s clear that smoking causes cancer, even if it doesn’t do it for every person, or if there are people who would have gotten cancer anyway.
Marco, your objection is noted, however by your own logic the fact that a severe weather event happened “60 years ago” or “in 1888” is not proof that a similar event today was not caused by a changed climate. The best we can say is we can’t prove cause for a specific event but we expect severe events like what we are seeing will increase due to a changing climate.
@ Breath on the Wind,
You are correct, although weather events that occur with a certain regularity must be examined carefully before being attributed to any particular change in the general climate.
As far as the cataclysmic occurrence of weather events is concerned, once qualified scientific opinion is separated from advocacy, the exact effects of climate change on weather patterns is neither united, and contentious.
The studies so far have not been without problems and anomalies, often due to the evolving nature of assessment technology, and the inaccuracy of previous data.
My observation was intended as a warning against sensationalizing natural events with inaccurate advocacy. Perhaps unfairly, but the public tends to judge all the valuable work in this area by the standard of those seeking to use a natural disaster for political purpose.
If Joe Public senses some advocates are simply crying ” Wolf”, then it makes it so much easier for a phenomenon like Donald Trump.
Marco the theory and your advocacy are logically correct, but to be realistic and not an extreme advocate yourself, it does seem as if “Joe public” has a very large capacity for extreme advocacy. So much so that there is a channel dedicated to some of the biggest lies in history that are or have been commonly accepted: http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/10-biggest-lies-in-history.htm
There is the principal attributed to Goebbels: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. …” http://thinkexist.com/quotation/-if_you_tell_a_lie_big_enough_and_keep_repeating/345877.html (… and falsely attributing quotes to already famous people is another example of this. http://www.innovativewealth.com/puppet-show/famous-misquotes/ )
There are also instances where people simply don’t want to accept or believe an “inconvient truth” John 8:45: “And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.”
And so we have a whole study of Rhetoric where individual can learn how to detect lies and the more obvious ways they are communicated, but also how to convince a disbelieving public who don’t know what to believe.
Marco while your point may be logically valid it lacks depth and nuance. We try and teach our children when absolute logical truth is not the correct course of action.
Never cross on the red light… but if there is an SUV about to hit you there may be a better course of action.
Never tell the people an inaccurate or wrong piece of information. But perhaps you are selling something that will allow you to fund your enterprise just a little longer that will advocate to avoid a crisis of another sort.
I would say at the very least never lie to yourself. But even here there are exceptions as studies have shown that this is exactly what top athletes do every day as they push the limits of what they can do.
@ Breath on the Wind
I think I understand where you are coming from, and in a world of distortions and propaganda, what’s a little more eh? Especially if in a good cause !
Well I guess it’s just comes down to this, trust and respect are very hard to attain for environmental causes. They can be lost so easily, and once lost or doubted, they may never be fully required.
I watched a televised Q.A. with Kinky Friedman, who opined that Donald Trump was a phenomenon created by the squandering of the Democrat legacy created by Clinton/Obama. The years of promise frittered away on failed projects, spin doctoring and just holding on to the Presidency at any price .
The irony of the Walt Kelly “Pogo” cartoon, “we have meet the enemy, and he is us ” , remains as pertinent as when he created it all those years ago.