The response from government, local, state, & federal have been good. President Obama left an abled FEMA that is doing its job even under a president incapable of maintaining a consistent path. I have even praised both Republican Governors Rick Scott of Florida and Greg Abbot of Texas. But should we?
Sometimes it is important to look beyond the immediate good deeds of government officials and look back to what they represent. Frank Palmeri’s article “The Media’s Silence on Climate Change During Irma Was Deafening” should give one a second thought. He wrote the following in the article.
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the increased frequency of such extreme storms is entirely consistent with their predictions of the effects of climate change. Yet the news media censors itself by not reporting this crucial fact. Instead, the dominant narrative marvels at the record-setting power of the weather events as they approach, then celebrates the common decency and the sometimes uncommon heroism of those who help others survive them.
Florida governor Rick Scott, who received good reviews for his proactive response to the threat posed by Hurricane Irma, has also prohibited state employees from using the words “climate change.” But it is inadequate to respond to massive storm damage with resolve and assistance at the individual, local, state, and national levels, and yet refuse to acknowledge the real cause of the destruction.
These are not simply “natural” disasters; they have been made life-threatening and costly because of human actions, especially the burning of petroleum products and the release of methane by billions of animals in factory farms. Climate change has led to warmer ocean surface waters, which power hurricanes, to higher sea levels, which produce higher storm surges, and to greater ocean water evaporation, which causes heavier rains.
To prohibit use of the phrase “climate change,” as the Florida government and the EPA grants administration under Scott Pruitt have done, will not make climate change go away. The cause will continue to produce the same dire results as long as we close our eyes to it.
Mr. Pruitt also said, after Hurricane Harvey poured 50 inches of rain on eastern Texas, that it would be very “insensitive” to discuss climate change in the midst of such a disaster. In doing so, he took the same line as extreme advocates of gun rights, who contend after each mass shooting that “now is not the time” to discuss sensible regulation of gun ownership. But if not now, when? According to the denialists, it is never the right time to discuss climate change.
That passage is significant. In effect, these governors and politicians doing a good job dealing with the disasters are part of the problem in that they are doing nothing to mitigate the problem in the first place. In fact, their policies make it worse.
The article is much deeper as it illustrates a media manipulated by various entities to distract from the causes of climate change.