The storm that wreaked havoc on Caribbean nations and the U.S. East Coast in late October offers a glimpse into our future. Along with recent heavy rainfall, flooding, heat waves and droughts throughout the world, it's the kind of severe weather event scientists have been telling us to expect as global temperatures rise.
Does that mean climate change caused Hurricane Sandy? No. Experts know that tropical Atlantic storms are normal this time of year. This one and its impacts were made unusually harsh by a number of converging factors: high tides, an Arctic weather system moving down from the north and a high-pressure system off Canada's East Coast that held the storm in place.
But most climate experts are certain the intensity of the storm and the massive damage it caused were in part related to changing global climate, attributed mainly to our habit of burning fossil fuels as quickly and inefficiently as possible. Global warming causes sea levels and ocean temperatures to rise, which results in more rainfall and leads to a higher likelihood of flooding in low-lying areas.
Scientists also believe this year's record Arctic sea-ice melt may have contributed to the high-pressure system that prevented Sandy from moving out to sea. In short, the storm and the unprecedented flooding and damage are exactly what climate scientists have been predicting.
Extreme weather events, including heat waves and drought, are no longer just model-based predictions, though. NASA scientist James Hansen, who sounded the alarm about climate change in 1988, recently wrote in the Washington Post,
"Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."
The damage that climate change is causing and that will get worse if we fail to act goes beyond the hundreds of thousands of lives, homes and businesses lost, ecosystems destroyed, species driven to extinction, infrastructure smashed and people inconvenienced. It will even devastate the one thing that many corporate and government leaders put above all else: that human creation we call the economy -- the very excuse many of our leaders use to block environmental protection and climate action.
According to Hansen, the Texas drought in 2011 alone caused $5 billion in damage. Repairing the damage from Sandy in the U.S. is expected to cost at least $50 billion. And as former World Bank economist Lord Stern has pointed out, slowing climate change will cost, but doing nothing will be cost far more.
And yet, in the U.S. presidential election, one candidate openly mocked climate science while the other all but ignored it. In Canada, our government's highest priority is to quickly extract and sell tar sands bitumen so that it can be burned up, mostly by China, which will further fuel global warming.
Some solutions are relatively simple and would provide economic benefits: implementing measures to conserve energy, putting a price on carbon through taxes and cap-and-trade and shifting from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy sources. Some may require a bit of sacrifice for people in the wealthiest parts of the world -- substantially cutting down on automobile use and air travel and shifting from rampant consumerism to a more conservative way of living, for example.
Much of this requires rethinking the ways we measure progress and govern our economies. That's what we've always done when our tools no longer fit our circumstances. But it's just not compatible with rapid tar sands expansion and governing for the sake of the fossil fuel industry.
Even the Conference Board of Canada says we can rapidly expand tar sands production or we can do something about global warming -- but not both. Thus, we see a mad rush to get the bitumen out of the ground and sell it quickly before it becomes economically unfeasible.
For the sake of our health, our children and grandchildren and even our economic well-being, we must make protecting the planet our top priority.
Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org. For more insights from David Suzuki, please read Everything Under the Sun (Greystone Books/David Suzuki Foundation), by David Suzuki and Ian Hanington, now available in bookstores and online.
Follow David Suzuki on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DavidSuzuki
Consider the travelling by plane, by the campaign participants for the presidential election in the past eight months or so. It is no wonder neither of the candidates could bring themselves to speak to the, "in our face issue". It is going to require a dramatic change in life style, which may need to be forced upon us by nature, if we are so fortunate. If of necessity, more persons take steps to dramatically change climate damaging life behaviors, the work of slowing down climate change will appear less onerous and taxing, because of the comfort in numbers.
Carin
For those preparing to jump on a lefty ....I ride an ebike, recycle, shop local,don't eat meat, ignore ads have no TV and shop second hand . I walk the walk and truthfully it's not that hard.
also heat our home with wood, have no other heat source, have the energy efficient bulbs, power our frig and upright freezer with solar and with our greenhouse and cold frames are able to still produce fresh foods year round. canning and dehydrating provide us many choices for meals.
we also make our own shampoos, toothpaste and cleaning products and have a medicinal herb garden. we no longer bring any synthetic chemicals into our home.
once you get into the swing of it, living this way provides a real sense of accomplishment. i know i'd be just fine if the supermarkets were bare or i were stuck here for a long time unable to get out.
1) Hard to believe but CNN, Bloomberg News actually are talking about climate change as though they are convinced it's for real.
2) Obama mentioned it in last nights acceptance speech.
3) The Republicans were hammered last night..The Koch Bros. crowd funded their boy to the hilt and lost billions. Discrediting of climate science was a business decision and with Romney's defeat and now that it's becoming part of public discourse they have to be asking themselves if it's smart to keep throwing money at it..
On the other hand this should be of serious concern.. 6 deg average rise by the end of the century
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/05-2