How do you talk about extreme weather and not mention climate change?
By Peter Dykstra in The Daily
Climate
I was in charge of
CNN's Weather Department for five years, including the mind-boggling mid-2000's
when Katrina was far from the only Atlantic coast catastrophe.
I've watched less and
less of CNN and its cable competitors in recent years, despite the fact that
turning 60 years old makes me a demographically-typical viewer.
With the twin horrors
of Harvey and Irma raking the Texas Gulf coast, Caribbean and Florida, I've
once again been immersed in following the drumbeat of storms and their
aftermaths.
I've found both great pride in how TV steps up to help save lives
in advance of a major storm, and equal dismay in the utter silence about the
potential links between extreme weather, severe storms and climate change.
Even if it's a little incongruous to be doing a live shot in thigh-deep water in a street intersection, declaring that emergency personnel are the only ones with any business being outside, TV reporters and meteorologists routinely play a heroic role when they chase potential viewers away from the couch and into the evacuation queue.
They help save
lives.
When they cite the
best-available projections on rainfall, flood risks, wind speeds and storm
surge associated with a landfalling hurricane, they almost surely save even
more lives. They're pros. They know what they're doing.
My former CNN
colleague Chad Myers recently delivered a brilliant description of
"reverse surge," where a hurricane's rotation causes a deceptive,
potentially lethal drop in flooding levels.
So let's give an
A-plus, a combat medal, a hearty thanks, for TV news living up to its most
noble potential.
But even if you're still in the isolated minority—relegated to
Fox News viewers, the alt-right, and Cabinet or House Science Committee meetings—who
believe it's the wrong time to utter the "C" word, you can't even
raise the question of whether climate change may be forcing extreme weather
into hyper-drive? Really? Not even a question? About something that, in the
long run, has the potential to save far more lives?
For all of its A-plus,
life-saving urgency in backing up evacuation efforts, TV news still can't bring
itself to even ask the question. I'm not even suggesting that climate
scientists be shown the same respect as local fire chiefs, that would be a
bridge too far submerged. But ask the question, for goodness sakes.
However, you can't
even ask the question as a part of wall-to-wall coverage of drained gas
stations, or the ill-placed bravado of beach-town oddballs vowing to ride it
out. This is F-minus territory, TV folks.
It's a part of the
story that dives deeply into the political gridlock you otherwise cover
obsessively. From South Beach to Key West to Mar-A-Lago, surely it drags
hurricane coverage into politically-tainted waters.
But the science is on your
side if you go there, and if you choose not to, you're not just taking
political sides, you're taking political sides against prevailing
science.
EPA Administrator
Scott Pruitt took time away from his busy schedule of disembowling the EPA to
point out that this was the "wrong time" to discuss climate change. Not to touch another politically third-rail
issue, but this is a little like the gun enthusiasts who insist, as often as is
necessary, that the latest schoolroom mass shooting is the worst possible time
to mention guns.
Think about it. Ask
the questions. Say the C-word. If you're already pulling an F-minus, you don't
have a whole lot to lose.
The Daily Climate is
an independent, foundation-funded news service covering energy, the environment
and climate change. Find us on Twitter @TheDailyClimate or email editor Brian Bienkowski at
bbienkowski [at] EHN.org