Gustav, climate, drilling, McCain, Palin — Some enviros self-censor, but should progressives?

A friend forwarded me an email titled “Gustav and Hannah” that was written to environmental activists by one of the top environmental leaders in this country. I am going to write on it length because it is illustrative of the catastrophic messaging failure of the environmental community on issues of climate, government action, and energy. I strongly believe other progressives must not make the same mistakes.

Here are key quotes from the email about “three potential areas where the message of the national environmental community” could supposedly be counterproductive:

  1. Our first concern relates to the fact that any particular hurricane hitting Louisiana is not an example of how global warming is making everything worse…. Blaming this particular hurricane on global warming runs the serious risk of coming off as opportunism in a community that knows full well that hurricanes are a normal fact of life, and could well set back attempts to engage this community on the issue.
  2. Second, a hurricane hitting Louisiana is not a good example of how federal flood policy has encouraged people to build in the way of danger….
  3. Third, hurricane damage in Louisiana is not an example of how additional OCS drilling is a bad idea. Such an argument puts the national NGO community in the position of attacking an existing and major job creating force in a conservative state.

While I think these three points range from wrong to dead wrong, this preemptively muzzling email is all the worse because it does not put forward what message environmentalists should be pushing. Let me (partly) address both of those problems, starting with the last point.

OFFSHORE DRILLINGThe email author writes: “Using any damage to the existing infrastructure as an example of why offshore drilling is bad may very well be perceived as an attack on the existing industry and people employed in it.” Duh! If the hurricane causes oil spills, then that is in fact an example of the dangers of drilling offshore. More importantly, it might at least make it harder for the GOP to keep lying about what happened three years ago (see TP’s “McCain Falsely Claims Katrina And Rita Did Not Cause Significant Oil Spillage”).


Obviously, McCain and the GOP think that creating the misimpression that offshore drill rigs or onshore infrastructure are impervious to strong hurricanes helps their case — since they keep telling the same lie over and over again long after the facts have been made available to all. I’m guessing that at least on the messaging side of things, they are a lot savvier than the environmental leader who wrote this e-mail.

Secondarily, does it matter whether the spill comes from an offshore drill rig or from onshore infrastructure? Of course not.

The ecosystem doesn’t care where spilled oil comes from. If we are going to do offshore drilling from, say, the Carolinas, then those states will need to build a new infrastructure to bring the oil to where the refineries are. If hurricanes were to hit and damage that infrastructure and release oil, it would still be an environmental disaster.

Third, by the author’s logic, any attack on offshore drilling “may be perceived as an attack on the existing industry and people employed in it.” So what? Most of the environmental community opposes coastal drilling. If it has to self-censor its most effective arguments, it really should go back to college debating and leave the real political debates to those who know how to do it.

Of course, the primary messages on drilling are that

FEDERAL POLICYThe email author writes: “There’s a huge equity and class issue problem with using coastal Louisiana as an example of how we must reform federal flood policy or the insurance system that can only be handled sensitively, not as a ‘lesson’ right after a disaster.” This is the kind of absurd red herring argument that conservatives try to claim progressives make.


The real issue here is that the federal government has refused to take the necessary action to preserve the vital wetlands that protect against hurricanes and that the federal government has refused to build the levees strong enough to protect the citizens of New Orleans against a Category 5 hurricane making landfall, which is certainly inevitable (see “Why future Katrinas and Gustavs will be MUCH worse”). Heck, Gustav, a “mere” Category 2 at landfall, came close to breaching at least one levee.

The real issue here is that the government’s refusal to take the necessary action to protect a major U.S. city like New Orleans from a superhurricane shows the whole notion we can or will adapt to catastrophic global warming is absurd (see “Hurricane Katrina and the Myth of Global Warming Adaptation”). If we won’t adapt to the realities of having one city below sea level in hurricane alley, what are the chances we are going to adapt to the realities of having all our great Gulf and Atlantic Coast cities at risk for the same fate as New Orleans — since sea level from climate change will ultimately put many cities, like Miami, below sea level? And just how do you adapt to sea levels rising 6 to 12 inches a decade for centuries, which well may be our fate by 2100 if we don’t reverse greenhouse gas emissions trends soon. Climate change driven by humans GHGs is already happening much faster than past climate change from natural causes — and it is accelerating.

Of course, the primary messages on federal energy policy is that we can’t solve our energy problems without strong progressive policies, as even uber conservative T. Boone Pickens admits (see “Pickens in a pickle: He embraces progressive policies but not progressive politicians”) but that conservatives like John McCain (and Sarah Palin) have long bitterly opposed such policies, no matter how they lie about such support today (see The real, Luddite McCain: “The truly clean technologies don’t work” and “Why McCain hates renewables but pretends he loves them” and “The Big Energy Lie” and “McCain’s new energy ad — the media is (almost) on to his cynical doubletalk” and “Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks at foreign wind company.”


The email author writes: “Blaming this particular hurricane on global warming runs the serious risk of coming off as opportunism in a community that knows full well that hurricanes are a normal fact of life, and could well set back attempts to engage this community on the issue.”

As I have written about at length (see here), this statement reflects one of the great messaging triumphs of the global warming deniers. The right wing have succeeded in browbeating much of the media (and the environmental community) to not talk about the connection between global warming and extreme weather. The journalist Ross Gelbspan has a long discussion of this in his great 2004 book, Boiling Point.


While it is almost certainly true that global warming makes any particular hurricane stronger, the issue has not ever been whether a particular hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Other issues are much more important and deserve elevation by progressives during times of extreme weather.

One key issue is that the devastation from a strong hurricane — particularly of a city that is mostly below sea level — is the shape of things to come in a globally warmed and flooded world. And I just finished a 2-parter on the impact of globally warmed waters on all future Gulf hurricanes (see “Why future Katrinas and Gustavs will be MUCH worse, Part 2”).

Another key issue is just basic climate messaging, which in this case should be “Global warming makes the weather more extreme.” If even the Bush administration accepts that basic fact of climate science, why shouldn’t the environmental community stop self censoring itself on this issue?

This is simple stuff. As the climate changes because of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, the weather becomes more extreme. That’s what climate change is. I understand why deniers don’t want the rest of us talking about the connection between global warming and the surge in extreme weather events that has been documented statistically by scientists — including NOAA’s National Climactic Data Center (NCDC). That would shut down most discussion of climate impacts today and for many years to come. But I don’t understand why major environmental leaders play along.

It is now officially absurd to take the view of the deniers or would-be censors. Back in June, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (aka the Bush Administration) issued Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate that acknowledged the basic climate science:

Changes in extreme weather and climate events have significant impacts and are among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate.

Many extremes and their associated impacts are now changing…. The power and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes have increased substantially in recent decades, though North American mainland land-falling hurricanes do not appear to have increased over the past century. Outside the tropics, storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are becoming even stronger.

It is well established through formal attribution studies that the global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases…. There is evidence suggesting a human contribution to recent changes in hurricane activity as well as in storms outside the tropics, though a confident assessment will require further study.

In the future, with continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity. Hurricane wind speeds, rainfall intensity, and storm surge levels are likely to increase. The strongest cold season storms are likely to become more frequent, with stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.

Is it so hard for the environmental community to say what the Bush administration has already acknowledged? Especially with multiple hurricanes bearing down on the U.S. coast???

Environmentalist have, to a large extent, taken themselves out of the political messaging game as it is now played. They have been playing slow pitch softball, while conservatives have been planning major league baseball. That is one of many reasons 450 ppm is not even close to being politically possible (see “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 6: What the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill debate tells us”. That is one of many reasons I have never considered myself an environmentalist.

In any case, progressives must not follow environmentalist down the path of wishy-washy messaging.