Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) presents a ceremonial football to a busy Chris Christie and his wife Patty before the Super Bowl.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie says he’s been so darn busy helping his state recover from Sandy that he has no time “to ponder the esoteric question” of whether global warming super-charged the superstorm. He said of those victimized by Sandy, “I don’t think they give a damn” what caused it.
Christie did have time to joke with David Letterman about his weight on CBS. And he even had time to fly down to New Orleans for the Super Bowl and some photo-ops.
He should have spent a few minutes talking to leading climate experts, who say climate change did worsen Sandy’s impact — and we can expect more frequent and destructive superstorms until we act on carbon pollution.
Here is what Christie said at a news conference Tuesday when asked about a link between climate change and Sandy:
“I have no idea. I’m not a climatologist and in the last hundred days I have to tell you the truth, I’ve been focused on a lot of things, the cause of this is not one of them that I’ve focused on…. Now, maybe in the subsequent months and years, after I get done with trying to rebuild the state and put people back in their homes, I will have the opportunity to ponder the esoteric question of the cause of this storm…. If you asked of these people in Union Beach, I don’t think they give a damn.”
A busy Chris Christie
You would think that the governor of a state slammed by two superstorms in two years would give a damn whether storms like Irene and Sandy had become the norm thanks to climate change and man-made carbon pollution. After all, in August 2011, Christie himself said of Hurricane Irene: “From a flooding perspective, this could be a 100-year event.”
His neighboring governor, Andrew Cuomo of NY, who has also been pretty busy, prebutted the charge that this is an esoteric issue, in his recent State of the State Address:
First thing we have to learn is to accept the fact — and I believe it is a fact — that climate change is real. It is denial to say this is — each of these situations is a once in a lifetime. There have been — there is a 100 year flood every two years now. It’s inarguable that the sea is warmer and that there is a changing weather pattern, and the time to act is now. We must lower the regional greenhouse gas emission cap. And let’s make a real difference on climate change by reducing the CO2 cap.
Christie unilaterally withdrew from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) back in 2011, bowing to Koch pressure.
Even President Obama had time to figure out that this isn’t an esoteric question but a key moral issue of our time. As he said in his second inaugural address:
We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. .
So even if the state doesn’t join with others to reduce its carbon pollution — indeed, especially if it doesn’t — planning for future superstorms becomes that much more important. Environmental blogger Bill Wolfe thinks “Christie should spend some time reading his own State Hazard Mitigation Plan instead of doing Letterman and the Superbowl. Here are some excerpts:
- GRADUALLY OCCURRING phenomena are more predictable and allow for long-range planning and measured preparation. On-going data collection, research, and modeling continue to refine our knowledge concerning the effects of climate change on the expression of phenomena that are regarded as coastal hazards. The U.S. Geological Survey evaluated the vulnerability of the mid-Atlantic region to the effects of sea level rise. The results of the study are presented in the report, Potential for Shoreline Changes Due to Sea-Level Rise Along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Region. The USGS study indicates that most of New Jersey’s coast is highly susceptible to the effects of sea level rise.
- SEA LEVEL CHANGE – While the precise rate of sea level rise is uncertain, current models indicate that climate change will cause the rate to increase. Based on the trend of sea level rise from 1961 through 2003, sea level would rise by almost 6-inches by the end of this century in the absence of any effects of climate change. Taking climate change into account, sea level is projected to rise between 7 and 21 inches by 2100. This increase would result in the threat of more sustained extreme storm surges, increased coastal erosion, escalating inundation of coastal wetlands and saline intrusion.
4.4.12.1.1 Preparing For Coastal Hazards & Climate Change
… Preparing for Climate Change: A Guidebook for Local, Regional, and State Governments, provides a process designed to guide regions and communities in preparing for the effects of climate change. In addition, The Heinz Center has prepared a report on human vulnerability to coastal disasters.
So the good news is that some folks in the state government have begun planning for the impacts of climate change on New Jersey’s coast. The bad news is the man in charge of overseeing any such planning thinks the matter is an “esoteric” one that his residents don’t “give a damn about.”
Related Post:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Home and community devastated, but no one cares about the cause? Really? Not bloody likely.
The Kochs now own Christie’s big fat ass.
At least at this point, Christie is the leading “moderate” GOP contender talked up for the 2016 race. Doesn’t look like much is close to changing with the GOP on climate change anytime soon when their leading “moderate” is talking like this.
Stepping back, its truly amazing the headlock that the Koch’s & Co. have on the GOP House / Senate members on climate change – the only GOP politicians that talk realistically about climate change are unelected or retiring ones (except for a very, very few). The political front organizations funded and directed by the Koch’s and others, promise and deliver a well funded primary challenger to House and Senate Republicans who vote for climate change legislation and/or green energy legislation. Matches up with the headlock that Grover Norquist has over tax increases on that party as well.
Its hard to see how that party gets out of their hijacking on those issues either. Its important to remember, even when the Dems had a veto proof majority in the Senate (2009) they were still going to need a chunk of GOP votes to get climate change legislation through (as a number of Dems were going to vote no on it).
“Truly amazing” doesn’t do justice to the hold the Kochs et al are supposed to have on the GOP – “quite incredible” seems nearer the mark to me.
Consider, the US fossil fuel industries are worth about $1.1Tn per year, which is about 7.3% out of the US economy of around $15Tn per year. I’ve no precise figure, but if only one half of that US economy were controlled by corporations, it would imply about six times more financial power lies in non-fossil corporations than in fossil-centred ones.
So where the hell are they on climate ?
The great majority have no inherent loyalty to fossil fuels, and all the majors have ample forward planning capacity to know their future profitability is right in the firing line of climate destabilization.
Given the chickenfeed scale of funds applied by the fossil lobby to sponsoring the circus of denial, the ~six-fold strength of non-fossil corporations could easily mount overwhelming counter-funding – of thinktanks, media, politicians, etc – out of their petty cash. And yet they remain silent and inactive. Why is that ? It would be absurd to propose that they are in fear of the fossil lobby, so what is the reason for their almost total reticence ?
Consider also the difference between US corporations’ conduct in climate politics and that of EU corporations. By contrast, while the EU’s major fossil corporations have not been accused of funding denialism since ’98 (when the GCC collapsed) various leading non-fossil corporations have been getting highly vocal – for example Munich Re (the global reinsurance giant) publicizing the message of its 40yr database of climate catastrophes, and Price-waterhouse-Cooper (the global accountancy giant) publicizing its assessment of the dire climate threat to the global economy.
The politics is rather different in the EU too. In his post on Christine Legarde’s candid statements at Davos Joe remarked that she is actually a conservative. In the same vein it is worth noting that when the UK parliament passed legislation for an annual 3% cut in CO2 output, it did so with just three votes against out of about 650 members.
So if it seems incredible that a 7.3% fossil-lobby tail is swinging the entire US corporate community, then what overriding interest does it actually share with that tail, which is simply not a relevant factor for the EU fossil lobby and EU corporations in general ?
The reality is that US corporations are fully aware that their profits, and the whole US ‘way of life’, depends on their control of foreign resources, and that this relies on the maintenance of US global economic dominance. This is the one pivotal factor that can explain the difference between US and EU corporations’ conduct. It implies that there has to date been tacit support across US corporations for the bipartisan policy of a brinkmanship of inaction, with its goal of imposing climatic destabilization on China to break its bid to end America’s global economic dominance.
We could of course assume that US corporate leaders are just so much more stupid and ill-informed on climate than their EU counterparts, and that US fossil executives are just so much more venal and callous than the EU ones – but this seems to me passing ridiculous. In both regions the executives serve their organizations’ primary interests, and those in the EU lack any interest in maintaining US dominance – especially at the expense of delaying mitigation of global climate destabilization.
Yet faith in the fabricated circus of denial is so much more appealing to most progressives in its exploitation of several favourite tribalist stresses – religious/scientific, northern/southern; urban/rural; liberal/conservative; even steak-eater/vegan, etc, – that most seem pretty determined not to question its authenticity. After all, if you can’t believe in the credibility of a bunch of lying conniving fossil lobby shills being to blame for four years of official inaction by a democrat president, what can you believe in ?
Regards,
Lewis
It makes perfect sense Lewis, to those of us in the South who watch, with apprehension, the relocation of, and build up, of USA forces in the Asia-Pacific as it threatens to destabilize the delicate geo-political situation, ME
Who is this guy and what the heck is he trying to achieve…
>>
But Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who specializes in hurricanes, said FEMA’s decision to leave Sandy out of the maps was likely a good one, because it is too soon to tell just what the superstorm represents.
“The problem is there has been just one storm of Sandy’s character,” he said. “We do not yet know if we are looking at a once in 100-year event or a once-in-a-1,000-year event.”
<<
Or an annual event, either now, or ten or twenty years down the track. These days talk of ‘once in 100 years’, let alone the preposterous ‘once in 1,000 years’ is simply soft denialism of the type rampant in government organs.
” If you asked of these people in Union Beach, I don’t think they give a damn.””
Can someone please ask these people….
Good idea. Given the Yale poll the result could be very interesting.
Union Beach township went for Christie in the 2009 election, as did most ocean-front townships, except those nearest NYC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_gubernatorial_election,_2009
Union Beach is a working class town. I did talk to Union Beach people, but, because of how Gov. Christie organizes his events and stacks them with loyal supporters, I doubt that they were representative.
The Mayor introduced Gov. Christie as the best Gov. ever.
Christie’s planted supporters in the crowd repeatedly interrupted the Gov. to applaud and praise him and ask for photographs.
They even boo’ed and shouted down 2 reporters who asked critical questions.
It was all rather Goebbels like from a propaganda perspective. Scary.
Anyway, long story short, homeowners I spoke with said they really didn’t give a damn about climate change and just wanted to move back into their house, regardless of risk, as fast as possible.
Bill Wolfe, Thanks for the first hand information, plus your linked page about Christie’s approval ratings.
‘There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action’.
At least Cuomo seems to get it. I also think people are more interested in causes than Christie gives them credit for because the weather anomalies are becoming so frequent that the average Joe is starting to notice something is wrong with the system. I notice more of “yes climate change is real but it’s not caused by humans” argument rather than outright denial.
Is he the guy who downed a pizza in one minute and won the eating contest at the Superbowl?
Only one? Or did you mean ‘..one pizza a minute..’.
Christie got a bit shirty when someone pointed out that his ‘Pickwickian body habitus’ was not conducive to a lengthy life expectancy. He seems predisposed to denying reality.
Not the cheap sluff-off denialist that I want to hear right now. Rhode Island is right at the bull’s eye tomorrow.
If we lose power from 60 mph gusts we lose heat but I think that we still have hot water.
My AGW condolences.
Another tempest in a tea pot included with the free lunch if you are part of the extreme GOP.
Been through one like that, a week without electricity, though in warmer weather.
The old fashioned gas-powered tank hot water heater operated without electric power, so we had the luxury of warm showers and hand-washed dishes.
If I get socked with extended power outage at this time of year, part of my plan is to take the insulating blanket off the HW heater and let it radiate heat out to the water pipes in the utility room, plus putting faucets on ‘fast-drip’ and flushing a toilet often enough to prevent freezing in those pipes.
Best wishes in any event, and hope it’s not that bad!
It seems a perfect voting issue: “Deny the cause, lose the vote.”
By perhaps the 2030s the GOP will disavow the Koch’s and Fossil fuel companies as the climate totally unravels, and economic collapse is an ongoing phenomena. By this time the GOP may begin also to distant themselves from the Ayn Randian dogma of weak vs the strong and infinite economic growth. As the climate reeks havoc globally- the few super rich will be the only ones left to buy the stuff that propelled the consumption based economy before.
Great post, Joe.
But readers that don’t click the links should know that while some in State government are working on climate change and planning, NJ Gov. Christie has pursued an across the board assault and dismantling on those efforts, including deregulation, privatization, defunding, institutional dismantling, and retaliation against professionals trying to do their job. I lay it all out in the post that Joe links to.
Wolfe
Christie’s up for re-election this year, so recovery from Superstorm Sandy can still be a hot topic where he wants to look good. I’d guess that in 2013 he’s likely to stick with the role of primarily taking care of his constituents, brushing off causes of storm severity as off-topic. Congress is unlikely to tag the federal relief he wants to explicit mitigation, so he doesn’t have to talk climate change to get funds.