THOUGHTS ON HURRICANE MICHAEL

By Ronald T. Fox

Angry Hurricane Michael, one of the most powerful storms ever to hit the continental U.S., unleashed a wrath of destruction across the Florida Panhandle, peeling off roofs, leveling houses, uprooting trees, boats and cars, pushing a terrifying surge of sea water that submerged entire neighborhoods, and taking lives. After being downgraded to a tropical storm, it moved on to the Carolinas and beyond to add more destruction to states already ravaged by Hurricane Florence.

A few months earlier, California and other Western states experienced a series of horrific, record-setting wildfires that destroyed forests, homes, businesses, and human lives. Like hurricanes, such devastating wildfires are occurring with increased intensity and frequency.  They've become the new normal.

What do these natural disasters have in common? As the overwhelming majority of climate scientists tell us, their growing intensity stems from the warming of our planet caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gasses. In a warming world, hurricanes become stronger and more destructive and droughts become more lasting and severe, providing a storehouse of fuel for wildfires.

REPUBLICANS AND THE HURRICANES

By Ronald T. Fox

NOTE: This essay is highly critical of Republicans and the Republican Party. In making my points, I admit to taking generalization liberties. Not all Republicans are guilty as I charge below; some, to be sure, are not completely heartless. Such Republicans, though, are few and far between. Today’s GOP is under the control of radical right true believers in unrestrained capitalism and the insulation of private property rights from the reach of government. Their emphasis on economic libertarianism leaves little space for humanity, or, for that matter, democracy. So, when I use the terms “Republican” and “Republican Party,” I’m referring to the party’s dominating--and uncompromising-- radical right.

Hurricanes Harvey was the largest rainfall event in American history. Over 51 inches of rain fell in some areas around Houston. While not bringing as much rainfall, Hurricane Irma delivered powerful winds and vast destruction to Florida, leaving more than a dozen dead and millions without electricity. Not to be outdone, Hurricane Maria, a category five hurricane, brought even greater devastation to Puerto Rico. Ninety percent of the islands is still--two weeks later-- without power or fresh water.

Terrible as this destruction was, it pales in comparison to mega-storm damage elsewhere in the world.  In India, Nepal and Bangladesh torrential monsoon rains and flooding has placed some 16 million children in urgent need of life-saving support.

High magnitude hurricanes, along with record heat waves, wildfires, and draughts, have been occurring with increasing frequency. These destructive natural events, climate scientists report, are almost certainly growing in magnitude because human behavior is causing the earth’s oceans to become warmer.

Each new gigantic hurricane makes me both sad and angry. I feel empathy toward victims, especially low income people who invariably suffer the most. (I’m not so sorry, however, for wealthy folks who choose to build in flood zones or live in fancy houses along a coastline). The know-nothing climate science deniers who have prevented our government from attacking the global warming problem spark my anger, as does the mainstream media, which relishes reporting on hurricane destruction, telling human interest stories, and showing journalists knee deep in flood water, but rarely probes deeper questions about what might be causing storms to grow larger and arrive more often.

In the U.S., climate change deniers are overwhelmingly concentrated in the Republican Party. In alliance with wealthy donors from the oil, gas and coal industries who have a financial stake in opposing any effort to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels, the party has blocked meaningful initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, the GOP has blood on its hands. It has aided and abetted the extreme weather horrors we are experiencing.

And that is not all. Republican support for unrestricted development, opposition to regulations aimed at protecting the environment, and public health and safety, hostility toward immigrants, and opposition to federal spending that compromises principles of economic libertarianism, exacerbates the human costs of high magnitude storms and wildfires.

The GOP can’t help itself. Decades ago it threw in with billionaire and millionaire ideologues bent on changing the rules of democratic governance to promote unfettered capitalism. The party has become passionately dedicated to promoting their various agendas. This means, among other things, pushing for tax cuts for the rich and austerity for everyone else. It also means rolling back regulations that prioritize human beings over profits.

I’ve been wondering how the Republican Party will respond to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Could these catastrophic climate events, coming so close together, lead them to question Republican "truths" about climate change? Could riveting visuals of destroyed neighborhoods, uprooted families, submerged towns from Houston to Jacksonville to San Juan, and flattened Caribbean islands, along with the realization that it will take years for full recoveries, reach into hard Republican hearts and squeeze out a little humanity? In short, will they learn any lessons from the hurricanes of 2017? 

The extensiveness of destruction in the paths of the hurricanes of 2017 cannot be fully explained by what we know about climate science. Republican opposition to reducing greenhouse gasses, and the party’s policies on land development, deregulation, immigration, and federal spending, made the hurricane-hit areas more vulnerable to destruction. I wish, in the aftermath of the great hurricanes, Republicans will ask themselves the following tough questions.

RESPONSE TO A CLIMATE CHANGE DENYING FRIEND

By Ronald T. Fox

NOTE:  An old climate change denying friend forwarded me a statement by a person named Patrick Moore that appeared on conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager's website.  In the statement, Moore expresses skepticism about the validity of climate science.  (See: Patrick Moore on Climate Change). Moore bills himself as a scientist and co-founder of Greenpeace.  Listening to the statement, inspired me to write a response. Please understand, this friend and I have gone back and forth on the global warming question for years. This is just the latest salvo.  I've decided there will be no more.  Have you ever tried arguing with a climate change denier?  I don't need to say more.  Anyway, inspired by the Pope's visit, which my friend panned, I decided to post my response to the friend.  (I'm sending this while on vacation in Switzerland.)

Friend,

I listened to the statement.  Moore doesn’t deny the planet is warming, but since it has also warmed in other centuries, he questions whether the recent spike is a result of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions. OK, call him a climate change skeptic, not a denier. As this view conforms to what you have expressed over the years, I can understand why you forwarded the pronouncement. It’s also your bible, the Wall Street Journal’s position.

 

I won’t attempt to go into the evidence that disputes this position—done that before to no avail (facts don't seem to matter).  Instead I’ll touch on the credibility of Patrick Moore and what’s behind the anti-climate science campaign.

 

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL: FOLLOW THE MONEY

 

By Ronald Fox

In an earlier post, Chuck expressed shock that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are some politicians, think tanks, “scientists,” and average Americans who still aren’t convinced that global warming is real and human caused (see: The Climate Change Saga: Oh My, What is Wrong with Us?) This skepticism challenges the consensus opinion of 97% of climate scientists as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gives a 95% guarantee of human causation of global warming, a rare consensus among scientists on any natural phenomena.

 

Just 63% of Americans believe climate is changing, and of these only 47% of believe the change is human caused (this represents a decline of 7% since 2012). These numbers stand in contrast to IPCC findings as well as public opinion in European nations, where governments have made far more significant strides in phasing out fossil fuels. Why do so many Americans disregard climate change science? Why are so many indifferent to a global crisis of such monumental proportions?

THE CLIMATE CHANGE SAGA: OH MY, WHAT IS WRONG WITH US?

By Charles Snow

When I was a third grader in San Diego in the 1950s, my teacher was Leta Lipp. She was a wonderful teacher who, among other things, taught us how to think about and interact with the natural environment. Ms. Lipp loved the American Indian way of life, and every summer she would spend some of her time visiting the Hopi reservation in Arizona. When she returned to teach in the fall, she would introduce American Indian philosophies and practices to her students in the form of stories and projects (e.g., carving kachina dolls out of balsa wood). Ms. Lipp taught us that the relationship between humans and Mother Nature was sacred. The earth’s God-given resources are precious and should be respected. When someone uses a resource, such as removing a bucket of river water for drinking or killing a buffalo for food, he should not be wasteful. The environment should not be despoiled in any way and should be preserved for future generations. Essentially, Ms. Lipp taught us to be in awe of Mother Nature’s wonders and to do everything we could to preserve them.

If she were alive today, I believe Ms. Lipp would be pleased with the attention the environment has been receiving lately. I’m certain she would be appalled at how we’ve let the environment degrade, and probably she would be angry at the U.S. for being one of the world’s biggest polluters. A few years ago, 65 scientists received a Nobel Prize for summarizing the research done to date and concluding that climate change is real and that it is largely due to the actions of mankind (using fossil fuels for energy, emitting carbon dioxide into the air from automobiles, etc.). A recently released U.N. report, which was held up as scientists agonized over its wording, stated these same conclusions even more forcefully. Just last month, the head of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development sought to make climate change a higher priority on the global agenda, urging the world to eliminate all emissions from burning fossil fuels sometime in the second half of this century.