I’m just gonna leave these here:
1) Here’s a Democracy Now discussion of how TV networks promote climate change denial by routinely omitting mention of climate change when covering extreme weather events like Hurricane Matthew, despite the fact that climate change is widely regarded as causing / exacerbating said events. (Also, by not asking a single friggin’ question about climate change during either of the presidential debates, or the vice presidential one.)
2) Haiti’s death toll: 1,000+. (“Cholera rampant.”) Many more to come, not just due to disease, but probable widespread starvation due to crop destruction. (Also, 17 reported deaths in the U.S.) Also undoubtedly lost were countless farmed animals, companion animals, and wild animals.
3) Colombia: unexpected defeat of landmark peace initiative due in part to depressed voter turnout due to Hurricane Matthew makes continued violence probable. (Also, Haiti’s presidential election indefinitely postponed.)
Climate change silence = death. If we don’t talk about it, we’re probably not going to act on it, and more people and animals will die. Unfortunately, many people get their climate-related news primarily from TV meteorologists, many of whom, due to ignorance [this too], arrogance [the first link again], and careerism, have abdicated their professional responsibilities and let us all down.
Every newscast should have a segment on climate change (and obviously not a denier one), and also every report on extreme weather conditions. And climate change should also be discussed in the context of agriculture, tourism, sports, and other weather-dependent activities. And OF COURSE it should be discussed by every political candidate, and not just in passing.
All with the goal of increasing everyone’s awareness and understanding of the problem, and motivation to address it.
The meteorologists’ abdication just increases the burden for the rest of us. So please: do your bit to help get the word out. Telling your local news station you want more climate change coverage would be a great start.
Some links:
*To help Haiti do NOT donate to the Red Cross, which was revealed to be grossly ineffective at best in this ProPublica report entitled, “How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti and Built Six Homes.” Instead, donate to Partners in Health (Dr. Paul Farmer’s org), which gets high marks from GiveWell and other charity monitors.
And donate to the Humane Society to help Haiti’s animals.
Please list other vetted suggestions for donations in the comments.
*For more info on climate change politics and economics, read Naomi Klein’s brilliant This Changes Everything.
*Oxford scientists say veggie diets could save up to 8 million lives by 2050 due to climate and public health gains. (Not including the animal lives!) “It could also avoid climate-related damages of $1.5 trillion (US).”
And, finally,
*Support climate activists, with funds, kind words, letters to the editor, etc. Here are some that are kicking ass.
EDIT: Cermet points out: “AGW is also at the heart of the terrible drought that has devastated Syria (major cause of its civil war) and much of that area of the world – see Iran’s eight year drought.”
And per Brachiator: “Also recommend Three Angels. The spouse of a local radio personality works for this organization and flew back home just ahead of the hurricane. They do good work, and are close to the ground. They employ local people instead of dropping down as “the experts” on local conditions.”
liberal
Yes, climate change is an extremely important problem to solve. But it’s difficult, for two reasons:
* Technological: many people seem to be underestimating the difficulties involved in moving to a renewable energy regime;
* Political: between nations, mitigating climate change is a collective action problem, and they’re notoriously difficult to deal with
Hillary Rettig
@liberal: Have you read Klein’s book? Because she addresses those points – and also some others, like how the elites are complacent b/c they’re pretty sure they, themselves will escape the worst of it. (Literally, she attends meetings where they laugh about that.)
This is a country that went to the moon so I’m guessing we can address the technical challenges. (As I’m told is a mantra at IBM: “There are no hardware challenges or software challenges–only people challenges.”) Which brings us to the political challneges, which I know will formidable. All the more reason to dive in…
Stan
Look to Pittsburgh and Philadelphia – two ordinary cities doing a lot to address this. I am sure there are other positive examples.
Pittsburgh even has a ‘sustainability office”. My city doesn’t even think about having that.
Elizabelle
good post
Hillary Rettig
@Stan: good point!
Cermet
AGW is also at the heart of the terrible drought that has devastated Syria (major cause of its civil war) and much of that area of the world – see Iran’s eight year drought.
Brachiator
Agree very much about the ineffectiveness of the Red Cross and some other big organizations.
Also recommend Three Angels. The spouse of a local radio personality works for this organization and flew back home just ahead of the hurricane. They do good work, and are close to the ground. They employ local people instead of dropping down as “the experts” on local conditions.
Hillary Rettig
@Cermet: I edited the OP to include your valuable comment.
Hillary Rettig
@Brachiator: also added to the OP. Thanks!
The Moar You Know
Your linked article in no way mentions Hurricane Matthew as a cause of the Colombian election results, and the hurricane at its very closest was just about a thousand miles from Colombia.
Christ, climate change is a legit thing – I live right at one of the many “ground zero” locations for it and am seeing it firsthand and it’s not pretty – but blaming deplorable election results on it leads to the de-legitimization of it that keeps it off the news and out of people’s minds. It’s bad enough when conservatives do it. Don’t continue to be the liberal that does it.
BR
It was interesting to hear Gore say yesterday that he studied Clinton’s plan and that he thought it was at the limit of what can be done (i.e. is as ambitious as is possible). He’s a wonk on climate science and it was good to hear his assessment. (I’m a bit of a wonk on climate policy as well.)
BR
@BR:
Also, too: Clinton should say “a half billion solar panels” more often — easy to understand line.
Hillary Rettig
@The Moar You Know: It was buried in there: “Hurricane Matthew probably depressed turnout on the Caribbean coast, where most people are pro-peace.”
Hillary Rettig
@BR: Agreed. Concrete specifics are good. Also 500M solar panels = many jobs.
We’ll never know the damage the GOP wrought when they forced the resignation of climate evangelist Van Jones early in Obama’s first term.
trollhattan
@BR:
She included the topic and that goal at the rally I attended last summer. She’s talking about it even if nobody (a-hem, media underlords) is paying mind.
Would love if she connected with Jerry Brown in raising renewable energy’s national status during her first year. California is well ahead of the rest of the nation and offers a working laboratory. Jerry terms out in 2018, so will be pondering his next gig.
Grumpy Code Monkey
@Hillary Rettig:
Getting to the Moon was easy compared to this.
Hillary Rettig
@Grumpy Code Monkey: disagree. GTTM had a single incredibly complex goal with a zillion potentially critical points of failure.
This can be attacked far more broadly and in different ways and you can fail a few times (or many times) and not compromise the result.
Balconesfault
At the SXSW Eco conference in Austin this week, with many sessions dealing with climate and sustainability issues.
Interesting discussion from one panel today on the future of a carbon tax. Thought is that if Hillary iis elected and the court upholds Clean Power Plan, you’ll see a clamor on the Hill to pass a carbon tax as a way of removing primary lead on the issue from EPA, who they may well hate more than taxes.
BTW, I urge caution on screaming climate change with every hurricane. The effects of hurricanes is certainty exacerbated by sea level rise, but plenty of people died from hurricanes 100 years age.
FlipYrWhig
@Balconesfault:
Pronounced “led” or “leed”?
Hillary Rettig
@Balconesfault: good to hear about that. as far as carbon tax vs EPA why not have both!!!
Hillary Rettig
have to leave the thread now but will check in later. Thanks all!
gvg
Actually it cannot be proven that climate change is responsible for any hurricanes. Climate change theory says that the likelihood will increase but there are so many qualifiers that it’s hard to discuss with non experts. Forecasters and officials have past experience that people too often don’t accept complicated warnings and when the storm is actually coming, they aren’t going to clutter up the broadcast mentioning anything but get out and directions. Having lived through quite a few in Florida, I agree with this. So many people for tribal or what ever reasons are in denial about Climate Change that tying evacuations to that controversy will result in more people refusing to act and keeping their innocent kids in harms way too.
For most of my youth Florida had no hurricanes but the historical record going back to Columbus and sometimes with archeology further indicates that this was unusual. The current higher activity level is actually more typical of what older pre 1970’s records say should be happening. Of course we used to have a lower population and less dollar valued real estate. Supposedly the reason for the 30+ year lull had to do with a long term drought in Africa, or rather the weather pattern that caused it also caused fewer hurricanes. This actually has been reported and written about in the news here in Florida since the 70’s, always with the explanation it could change back at any time and we were over building on the coast. We all read these things but people just aren’t good with processing that kind of information and I have to also say we are very fond of telling stories about many different dooms coming so it gets ignored. think about all the end of the world predictions you have already lived past while considering those who fall for them to be idiots. the current return to normal involves tropical depressions forming in the ocean just off the bulge out part of the African continent and rotating across the Atlantic, sometimes getting stronger mostly not. They seem to be spaced on the weather maps about a week to 10 days apart and they are in a straight line till the get close to here when they start spinning off into all different directions. this happens most years now and for about 30 years it stopped right when weather prediction became a thing so we tended to think that was the norm but it wasn’t.
Some of the older hurricanes were mainly recorded because the sunk Spanish treasure ships. so far it has not been enough to say for sure it’s climate change. even temperature here in Florida is still not high enough to say climate change because we have had several documented changes before and had to relocate the citrus industry. Florida is actually having colder temps than we had a century ago. Citrus used to be grown comercially in Jacksonville-north Florida until freezes at the beginning of the last century pushed them to central Florida and freezes in the 70’s and early 80’s pushed them to south Florida. At any rate hurricanes are too normal to prove anything.
Now rising ocean levels are more the kind of undeniable proof this issue needs.
nonynony
@Hillary Rettig: Yes, but getting to the moon was about a single organization constructing something that you could throw into the air with people inside of it. It was “just” an engineering problem restricted to a small group of people.
Global climate change involves changing the behavior of every nation on the planet. It’s a much bigger, more complex problem with many more moving pieces.
trollhattan
@Hillary Rettig:
Well…the manned space program didn’t hinge on dismantling an entrenched two-century old system while simultaneously inventing the needed technology and processes to make it happen. We also broke a few eggs making that omelette (Apollos 1 and 13 especially).
Our task is doable but we’ve so overshot the time to take serious measures the impacts baked in are already dire.
Mnemosyne
Doctors Without Borders sent me an email to say that they have landed their teams in Haiti, so that’s another good place to donate.
Starfish
@gvg: Well stated. Hurricanes happening in areas that normally get hurricanes during hurricane season is not shocking. The number of 100-year floods in areas that do not regularly flood is.
gvg
@The Moar You Know: As I recall the Columbia election surprise result was well before the hurricane. I finally read a reasonable explanation which was that the voters felt the terms were too easy for actual murdering criminals. this is understandable for voters but I can’t help noting that it’s been very hard to end civil wars where you don’t pardon really bad people too and if a war continues more killing still happens.I don’t know where the line is and don’t feel it’s my business but I hope they know their own business. I also read the government was continuing with more negotiations.
? Martin
People aren’t really grasping the scope of this.
In order to hit the 2 deg target, we need to stop emissions today. California just signed legislation to cut carbon emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Nobody else in the country is even trying to meet the 2020 goal that California just passed. And California’s new goal still isn’t aggressive enough. If the country were serious about this, we’d have legislation that would require all coal plants to be shut down by 2020 and coal mining to be banned. Germany just banned the production of fossil fuel vehicles starting in 2030. Germany – inventor of the automobile, home of BWM and Audi and Mercedes. All EVs or fuel cell by 2030. And that’s probably too late. Banning the use of fossil fuel cars by 2030 is closer to what is needed. What’s the US doing? Almost nothing.
gvg
@Starfish: 100 year floods can also be caused by millions more people with lots of concrete and asphalt covering more ground that used to soak up rain and nobody wants the water to sit on their property breeding mosquito’s. I have not yet heard that our actual rainfall in inches has gone over the historical record. I expect it will, and that is something that can be measured and compared.
BR
@Balconesfault:
I like the idea of a Clean Energy Dividen (100% redistributed carbon tax) rather than a conventional carbon tax. Much more transparent, and effectively doubles as a universal basic income.
? Martin
@trollhattan: But the difference is that this effort can be widely distributed. Not only across industries, but also individually. It scales way better than the space program did.
bystander
@gvg:
Also, angry fairy sprites with vengeful wands!
Mike J
@gvg:
In the same way it can’t be proved steroid use causes home runs. When somebody happens to go from hitting 20 to hitting 35 per year, you still can’t say, “the HR on July 17 in the 4th inning at Yankee stadium was because of steroids.”
BR
@Mike J:
The science I’ve seen seems to suggest that the frequency of hurricanes may or may not be changing due to climate change, but that the most extreme storms are being made stronger.
jl
@Mike J: gvg typed a lot without saying much, IMHO. I don’t know of any climate scientists who are saying that man made climate change is responsible for any particular, or even more hurricanes. But growing evidence that climate change will make hurricanes larger and more severe. And they have at least one causal mechanism: deeper layer of warm water, and that layer will be even warmer than in the past. So hurricanes do not dredge up enough colder water to provide a control on size or severity.
As time goes by, we will get an increasingly clear picture through looking at records of extreme hurricanes, distribution of severity and size. I don’t see how hurricanes are any different from discussion of impact of global warming on droughts, heat waves, or rainfall patterns. You can’t do much statistics on just one event, but so what?
Mike J
@BR: The same way line drives are made stronger?
My point is, just because you can’t make a causal connection between an individual event and [climate change|steroid use] doesn’t mean that there is no connection. Stats that look at a whole season or career can be the most useful way to discover connections.
BR
@Mike J:
I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m differentiating between frequency (science is unclear) and intensity (science is increasingly clear).
jl
And anyway, what about an HRC presidency? Huh? Trump is saying that if HRC is elected, the sun will dim and explode at the same time, the skies will blacken, the crops will wilt, milk sour, our waters turn dark and poisonous, and from which disgusting poisonous reptiles and walking fanged fish will emerge to devour us all. Nuclear bombs will spontaneously detonate and engulf the world in death and destruction. What about that, huh?
That’s not some hoax created by the crafty Chinese, that is Trump talking.
waysel
@gvg: I thought the CW with the climate guys was that storm intensity- not frequency- is what will definitely increase with global warming. And hurricane intensity matters a lot. Also applies to blizzards and spring/ fall storms, winds therein, flooding, and tornadoes, of course. Sea surface temperature is a big climate shaper.
jl
@Mike J: Statistics does not make causal connections, no matter how many observations you have. The more observations you get on independent events you get for a statistical analysis, the more precisely you can determine which causal theory is most consistent with the correlations that are, essentially, all that any statistical analysis can give you.
I believe that man made global warming through burning of fossil fuels, and a few other selected human activities is real, and a very serous problem because the statistical correlations are so consistent with a consistent causal physical theory, and one that goes back over a hundred years now. In fact, the predictions from the early causal theories (which had some details wrong or omitted) hold up pretty well. For me it is a slam dunk, science-wise.
schrodinger's cat
This analysis sounds like a lefty version of Brietbart News, somewhat plausible if you are already biased that way. Klein’s econ analysis is not rigorous.
BR
I’m looking forward to the next oppo drop on Trump — it might be best to have him bail on the last debate entirely.
BR
@schrodinger’s cat:
What analysis are you referring to?
Grumpy Code Monkey
That’s what makes it so hard to convince people that this is a real problem; you have to argue using statistics, and we just don’t do statistics that well. From the comment thread in an article over at Ars Technica on the divide between Democrats and Republicans on AGW and climate change:
Snark218 wrote:
jl
” The meteorologists’ abdication just increases the burden for the rest of us. ”
What reputable meteorological association has denied the consensus on global warming? The media TV people are supposed to tell us what will happen next week, and more and more, some suggestions about what to expect over next month to season generally, as models get better. When we have enough information to say that the, for example, most recent global warming caused shift in jet stream, will surely flood or bake the local area, we will surely hear about it in the nightly newscast.
US media is horribly negligent in reporting news on climate change, as it is on many other important issues that may inconvenience rich and important advertisers and funders. But the nightly weather segments are not the best places to fix it, IMHO.
schrodinger's cat
@BR: Naomi Klein’s mumbo jumbo.
BR
@schrodinger’s cat:
Ah, ok.
chopper
@? Martin:
in order to hit the 2 degree target we need to have stopped carbon emissions decades ago. co2 has a lag time if several decades, so we’re already going to blow past 2 degrees above pre-industrial. never mind the effects of Arctic amplification given the fact that methane is far more effective as a GHG in an environment with less sunlight and moisture.
the question isn’t “can we stop it at 2 degrees”. the question is “if we stop now will the extra warming that’s baked in already going past 2 degrees lead to feed backs that take the whole thing out of control”.
SiubhanDuinne, liberal mob enforcer bitch
@The Moar You Know:
Sure it did. Second paragraph:
jl
@Grumpy Code Monkey: Not sure whether that link is saying we cannot do stats that well, or cannot communicate the implications of the results that well. It takes a shitload of observations to see what the tails of long-tailed distributions will do in a feedback system. But that is just how things work in this universe. Don’t blame statistics for that.
As a statistician, I wonder why poor ol’ statistics is required to do such heavy lifting. I think more emphasis should be put on the physical theory that provides the causal interpretation of the statistics. I don’t think the basic physics is nearly as hard to explain as the stats. The history of the physics is certainly not as hard, and it is actually kind of interesting (no, really!).
Calouste
@gvg:
Hurricane Matthew was off the Columbian coast on October 1, the referendum was on October 2. Hurricanes tend to go through the Caribbean before they hit the US.
? Martin
The real problem with distributed risk conditions is that the very people who must and can most afford to implement change are those that believe they are rich enough to escape it. The US can’t act because there’s 15,000 coal miners in West Virginia who’ll lose their job. It’s not our concern that 100,000 people in Bangladesh will die due to that decision.
Villago Delenda Est
The guys who think about strategic shit at the Pentagon know all about this.
The dumbasses in the GOP dominated Congress? Not so much.
Hillary Rettig
@gvg: agree that you don’t want to clutter up emergency broadcasts and evacuation warnings with secondary information. disagree that the information is too complex to be easily presented or understood by ordinary citizens. people can manage all kinds of complexity when it’s properly conveyed. and you don’t have to reach everyone – reaching the majority would do.
Hillary Rettig
@nonynony: I think you’re wrong. NASA had many subcontractors. I think there were tens of thousands of people involved.
I’m guessing someone on this thread can tell us.
Hillary Rettig
@Mnemosyne: good! They’re a wonderful organization – I didn’t include them in the OP because there wasn’t a dedicated page for the Matthew victims on their site.
Hillary Rettig
@? Martin: Great – if sobering – points.
Hillary Rettig
@? Martin: thank you. [[doin’ a little dance b/c the geoengineer? made the same points I did]] :-)
Kjsbrooklyn
I try and do my bit. When someone in the elevator in my building comments about how nice the weather is for mid-October, I always say yeah, but it shouldn’t be this warm, it’s global climate change. Same thing with my dog park friends. I am just a beacon of sunshine on this topic.
Hillary Rettig
@? Martin: As Naomi Klein pointed out in her book. She attended meetings where developed-world scientists and entrepreneurs were joking about how they would likely survive no matter what happens.
The Pale Scot
@? Martin:
Hillary Rettig
@Kjsbrooklyn: honestly I think doing that kind of thing is quite useful. people need to hear about it from many different angles, and from people they know, or at least meet, personally. Thank you!
waysel
I’m thinking it will never, ever, be possible to Prove Man Made climate change. Not even the last surviving oasis of humans will be able to Prove, Inconclusively, that humans were the cause of the planet becoming inhospitibal to our species. So we have to convince billions of short sighted, self centered humans that, in the interest of their great grandchildrens survival, they must do with less luxury than they are used to? Because of something happening so slowly and almost invisibly that they have to take our word for it, pretty much? And to try to explain it gets all ‘sciencey’ and science is hard, and I just want to go roll some coal in my bro-dozer, so get outta my face. I’m now officially a concern troll.
Cermet
@waysel: You are not correct; science does not prove anything in the sense you are saying it must in order to achieve “absolute” proof. That is neither true nor accepted by scientist. The common method is five sigma and that is the gold standard. People accept similar conclusions all the time – the test comes back you have a disease – do you say their is not absolute proof and refuse meds? No, you understand that the test isn’t perfect but you also know the odds are you are ill with that illness. Please, your statement is just nonsense – we do not use absolutes – like a point being infinitely small; in fact, modern science knows by way of quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as such ideas, much less a need for such proofs. AS such, yes, you can prove AGW is real and occurring and that is exactly what has been done.
The Pale Scot
@Cermet:
Could you elaborate or put up a link?
Peter White
Another great charity on the ground in Haiti is http://www.cofhed.org.
Gretchen
If you’re not ready to go full vegetarian, just cutting back on your meat consumption can really help. Eat meat once a week, and you’re doing the same as a group of 6 vegetarians and one enthusiastic meat eater. Cutting back is a big help.
Stan
@gvg: Good point, and again, this is something the city of Pittsburgh PA is addressing through their sustainability office. They are constructing rain gardens and (my favorite bit) incentivizing permeable surfaces through their tax code.
Go read about it: http://pittsburghpa.gov/innovation-performance/sustainability
Or here: http://www.pgh2o.com/going-green