Few people are talking about it. This presidential campaign is the first since the 1980's where the major candidates did not directly address climate change during the debates. It's not like the problem is any better now vs. Reagan's time. In fact it's terribly worse. But after Solyndra and the weak recovery, climate change is out of favor. Imagine all the debt associated with cleaning up after mega-storms like Katrina and Sandy. I'm not saying that smarter climate policy since the 1980's could have prevented those storms, but maybe it will prevent an even worse storm in 2050 (and mega-droughts in key farming/ranching areas, and capstone species loss, and sea level rise wiping out vital coastal real estate). At least spend more money on better storm protections, climate change response research, and emergency resources, instead of gutting funding so you can give tax breaks to hedge fund managers and big energy. Maybe then Cuba and Iran won't have to offer us assistance after a storm.
I feel bad for the damage and suffering in the northeast, but I think the media attention is disproportionate (as usual). Sandy = category 1 (75-90 mph winds), Katrina = category 5 (>157 mph). Sandy has killed 33 so far out of 50M affected residents. Katrina killed 1,800+ out of about 1M residents in the area. 5+ years later New Orleans still hasn't returned to pre-storm condition. They will clean up NYC in a month or less. But of course Katrina hit poor, backwards New Orleans, and Sandy hit the big cities "where things actually matter" (Arnold Rothstein, Boardwalk Empire) and where the media/money are located. Of course the loss of power to 8M households is a big deal, and the cost of Sandy's cleanup may eclipse that of Katrina, just because it affected a much larger area. Bottom line - both are terrible tragedies but the responses are different.
No comments:
Post a Comment