A Sadly Accurate Storm Warning
Just as last week’s blog hearkened back to a previous Rolton Group article, it seems another topic previously discussed has again become food for thought: in ‘Canute comes to North Carolina,’ I discussed the pitfalls of allowing ignorance to reign over rationality, specifically in relation to the disturbing trend of rising sea levels seen along the North East coastal corridor going unnoticed by those in charge.
16th November 2012 | Peter Rolton: Chairman, Rolton Group
Within the article, I also spoke of the very real possibility of changes to surrounding currents causing huge turbulence, citing in particular the exposed city of New York.
Global coverage of Hurricane Sandy means that most people are now aware of the devastation it caused across several countries and US states, killing more than 100 citizens and razing vast regions to the ground. New York has been at the centre of media attention, and as numerous communities face their third week without electricity, the city is preparing to ask for federal disaster aid in the order of more than $30bn to restore its battered landscape.
Whilst no credible person could categorically attribute this disaster to climate change, it is hard to ignore the correlation between events playing out in this situation like falling dominos. The change in weather patterns aren’t singularly caused by a rise in temperature but instead form one of the extremes found at all ends of the spectrum; weather forecasts frequently talk in terms of the wettest, coldest, driest, or windiest weather on record, and the hurricane and subsequent super storm exemplify this growing volatility.
Though President Obama has become increasingly vocal since the disaster about his conviction that ‘climate change is not a hoax,’ it failed to register at any of the debates he participated in with Mitt Romney only weeks ago. This absence was significant in itself; 2012 marks the first year since 1988 that climate change has not appeared in any presidential election discussions, despite the growing urgency with which it demands to be treated. By ignoring the issues of global warming in the apparent hope of placating climate change deniers, the two candidates did the severity of the problem a disservice, implying by their disinterest that it is something to be acknowledged or ignored
as the situation suits.
Since successfully holding on to his position, however, President Obama’s allegiances have once more been made clear; he made specific reference to the issue in his victory speech, stating: ‘We want our children to live in an America that isn’t… threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.’ Green organisations across the world now hope that he is starting his second term as he means to go on, and that decisive action will be taken with the resolve necessary to combat climate change. Perhaps his initial avoidance of the subject was an attempt to avoid being marked by the polarization of attitudes which seems to have taken hold across the world. Two distinguishable categories have emerged: the over-zealous believers in an impending ‘Day After Tomorrow’ scenario, and the outright deniers who turn their backs on the vast amount of evidence that supports the notion of a warming planet. Whilst it may be a divisive topic, recognising only one perspective or another leaves no scope for reasoned understanding somewhere in the middle, and public awareness can’t be expected to raise itself on what has almost become a pastiche of distorted facts, figures and vested interests.
In the USA, just as in Britain, steps must be taken away from the four-year thinking which pervades governmental policy in order to counter some of the damage which has been done so far, reverse the worryingly uncertain fortunes of future generations, and stop further predictions coming to pass. We have a long term problem on our hands, one which demands long term solutions that transcend contemporary politics.
Post Categories: