Heating of Pot No Reason for Alarm, Reports Frog Media

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 boiled future 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.

Reading these stories, I can't help but think of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed 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?

New Links Between Environment, Economy, Public Health

Over at Grist, Dave Roberts reviews some recent studies on the economic impacts of environmental issues and concludes:

One thing they all have in common: an environment-degrading practice often defended as necessary to economic health is revealed, upon closer inspection, to be uneconomic. I wonder how many other allegedly economic environment-degrading practices would also be revealed uneconomic if examined with a fresh eye?

It’s almost like the economy is embedded in an environment, and degrading the latter ultimately degrades the former.

And in today's Washington Post, David Fahrenthold reports:

The same pollution problems that afflict the Chesapeake Bay's fish and crabs -- high levels of mercury in fish, neon-colored algae blooms and voracious bacteria -- can also threaten the health of people who fish, boat and swim in the estuary, according to a new report.

The report, released today by the nonprofit Chesapeake Bay Foundation, pointed out that the threat of infection from pollutants that wash into the bay from onshore is great enough that health authorities recommend not swimming until 48 hours after a significant rain.

You know that old myth about how you can put a frog in water and slowly turn up the heat and the frog won't notice until it's boiling? That's us when it comes to the Bay. We've been sitting here, not noticing the minor changes as the Bay slowly degrades. Now we can't even swim in our own Bay after a heavy rainfall.

It's happened gradually enough that what should be a shocking change is received not with outrage but with resignation.