It's not true that if you slowly turn up the heat, a frog won't notice that his surroundings are getting hotter - the frog will jump out of the pot if he can. That's an allegory - but whether humans will recognize & respond to their warming climate is a very real & open question.Mainstream media coverage of Friday night's extreme storms in the Mid-Atlantic region shows no sign of hoppiness:
- The Washington Post has no mention of climate impacts in its main story on the storm. Even its sidebar story detailing the record-shattering temperatures that fueled the derecho waits until its final sentence to say the rare storm "raises the question about the possible role of man-made climate warming" - but says any judgement must be left to
after the frog has already boiledfuture case studies. Next to the storm coverage is an in-depth look at tar sands, one of the most carbon pollution-intensive fuels on the planet, but true to modern American journalism's View From Nowhere, the Post makes no connection between the two stories, not even on the editorial page. - The New York Times, NPR and CNN make no mention of climate change in their stories on the storms. Last night, CBS Radio News blamed the storms on "Mother Nature," skipping past ignorance to outright denial.
- Meanwhile out West, the Associated Press reports nationwide droughts are canceling fireworks displays for many states. Climate scientists have been warning for years that global warming will result in deeper droughts and more intense wildfires, yet the AP makes no mention of climate impacts.
by Jared Diamond. Past dominant societies have proved quite capable of blissfully ignoring all evidence of impending doom. So far, America's media is proving no different. Will 2012's record temperatures and extreme weather change that? Or be just another milepost on the road to disaster?
5 comments:
Virtually everyone ignores the fact that many of the trees that fell are rotten, which is plainly visible in many of the photos.
We are having unprecedented fires and storm damage - and can expect far worse because vegetation is dying off from exposure to air pollution. Many people believe air pollution isn't a problem anymore because the visible component of smog - SOx - has been reduced. However, the background level of invisible tropospheric ozone is inexorably rising, even in rural areas, and it happens to be quite toxic to vegetation, including annual agricultural crops. Trees that have cumulative injury are more vulnerable to insects, disease and fungus.
Trees fall in 70 mph winds because their roots are shrunken. Root systems are damaged from ozone absorption before visible symptoms appear on foliage and needles...according to research cited by the EPA. And according to a report referenced at Climate Progress, ozone is responsible for the loss of 30 million tons of crop yields annually, which begs the question, how much wild vegetation is being lost? Link here:
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/06/inferno-ignites.html
A free book on this topic can be downloaded here: http://www.deadtrees-dyingforests.com/pillage-plunder-pollute-llc/
Pg 5 of Post today: Scientists Link Monster Fires, Climate Change. Though a pretty good article, the Post is generally SO spotty on any linkage to CC, especially with local weather/events.
You're right, Darryl Fears' story in today's Washington Post on global warming's impact on the Colorado wildfires is excellent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/colorados-table-was-set-for-monster-fire/2012/07/01/gJQAVa6cGW_story.html
Maybe the NY Times and Wash Post think that if they remind people about how living their life and the everyday struggles they go through just to get by are potentially slowly killing the planet and that there is no simple individual actions they can take that would have any meaningful impact on that then people would be depressed and not read their paper. I'm not sure what other reason they would have to avoid including that in their coverage, since I'm sure they don't disbelieve the science.
Maybe the NY Times and Wash Post think that if they remind people about how living their life and the everyday struggles they go through just to get by are potentially slowly killing the planet and that there is no simple individual actions they can take that would have any meaningful impact on that then people would be depressed and not read their paper. I'm not sure what other reason they would have to avoid including that in their coverage, since I'm sure they don't disbelieve the science.
Post a Comment