“It is a fact that the raging fires in California and other parts of the west are due to climate change.” begins Sacha Pfeiffer’s recent segment Unnatural Disasters from the September 17th episode of the On the Media podcast appropriately, if not ironically titled Fire & Brimstone.
“So are the droughts, deep freezes and drenching storms that are commonplace events these days.” How lovely is your alliteration!
These statements are garishly untrue and illogical, even if one were to fully concede the general body of what I would refer to as “Climate Change Theory”. I don’t, but I’m not a climate change denier or Flat Earther either.
I suspect that you generally accept the scientific claims that global warming has been occurring for some time and is most directly caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, primarily caused by industrialization and the use of fossil fuels. Ok, I’m generally on board with that. I reserve some skepticism on the topic and scrutinize the most radical claims of climate change theorists. But I admit that the literature and even my personal experience of five decades on the planet tend to support the theory.
However, the glaring logical fallacy that you’re making is a direct causal connection between any specific natural disaster and the phenomenon of climate change or global warming.
Hurricanes are not caused by global warming. Hurricanes are meteorological events that have occurred for all of recorded history. What Climate Change Theory suggests is that hurricanes will occur with increasing frequency and intensity. However, it does not follow that Hurricane Ida was “caused” by global warming. There is no way to determine which storm is incremental to what might have occurred absent global warming. There is no way to way to determine the difference in the intensity of a particular storm that can be attributed to global warming.
To me, the claim of a causal link between global warming and wildfires in the Western US is even more outrageous as there are many other more direct causalities to confound an argument, such as poor forest management practices and suburban sprawl.
Your statements seek to draw direct causality between climate change and individual natural disasters. In this piece, you go on to suggest that the media is failing civilization by not talking about climate change often enough while they are reporting on natural disasters.
I disagree wholeheartedly. In fact I am extremely weary of the hyperbolic references to climate change that I hear in the media now tacked on to virtually every news cast and weather report. As discussed in your segment, there is a serious risk of audience fatigue on this subject.
Why do you want increased media coverage of climate change and more direct connections to be made between natural disasters and the ecosystem level trends? Your intentions are no doubt noble. You believe that increased awareness and acceptance of the reality of climate change will lead to legislative action, social pressure on nations and corporations that must act to combat climate change. You seek to build a global sense or urgency that this issue must be a top priority for society.
What’s wrong with your approach? Why should you and the rest of the media stop this practice?
First and foremost, the over attribution of climate change to any natural disaster alienates rational thinkers, polarizing and politicizing the issue. It seems to me that prioritization of climate change as a global concern has been shoved into the basket of right-versus-left, conservative-versus-liberal issues that divide rather than unite us. Because of the hype, our response to climate change has been lumped in with social justice, abortion, gun rights and the growing litany of issues that color some states red and other states blue.
Secondly, the notion that global climate change poses an immediate existentialist threat is causing mass public hysteria, often now referred to as “climate anxiety“. A recent global survey reported that 56% of respondents “think humanity is doomed”. “Many of those questioned perceive that they have no future….”. This is obviously unhealthy and unproductive.
Although not directly addressed in this segment, your “camp” seems to be operating under the notion that we know what to do about climate change and it’s simply a matter of mustering sufficient public support for a plan of action that will slow or stop global warming and reverse it’s effects. I defy this notion and challenge you to cite any party, plan or set of recommendations that offer an escape from climate change. There are obviously many policies, laws and political agreements (e.g. The Paris Accord) that promote common sense reductions in greenhouse gases. But no one imagines any course of action currently proposed will stop this planetary development. More discussion of adaptation (e.g. strengthening the levy system in New Orleans, preventing Ida from causing the level of devastation that Katrina caused) and less focus on a global solution seems sensible to me.
I also worry that the over prioritization of climate change threatens to distract us from a number of other much more immediate existential threats, such as nuclear war, global pandemic, and over population. In fact, missteps in trying to engineer a man made solution to global warming might pose an even bigger threat to humanity than the phenomenon itself.
In summary, I oppose the proposition that the media must incorporate references to climate change in every report on natural disasters. I object to the fallacious assertions you made at the beginning of this segment. I advocate strict, factual, science-based conversation on this important topic without politicization and hyperbole.
Thought Garden 