More in my series of “Shit like this is why I am sympathetic to climate change skeptics” and “maybe the 1st Amendment should not apply to journalists”.
Bullshit clickbait is bullshit clickbait, not a productive discussion on science and science policy. Holy shit, how is anyone at CNN okay with this title? This is just straight Buzzfeed-class writing. This should not be acceptable from a major news outlet. “scare the [shit] out of you”? Sounds even-handed.
“Editor’s Note: CNN columnist John D. Sutter is reporting on a tiny number — 2 degrees — that may have a huge effect on the future. He’d like your help. Subscribe to the “2 degrees” newsletter or follow him on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. He’s jdsutter on Snapchat. You can shape this coverage.”
Snapchat? They’re providing his fucking snapchat? What, in case you want to send him dick picks? I lack the ability to articulate how that makes me feel. A brief digression on this series “2 degrees”:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/opinions/sutter-climate-poll-refugees/
According to the author’s bio, he “is a firm believer in involving readers and viewers in the storytelling process.” He is taking that attitude to this series: “You selected [this] topic in a Facebook poll that closed at 5 p.m. ET Monday.” “Facebook poll” and “storytelling” are words that should never, ever come anywhere near reputable journalism. This isn’t some guy’s Tumblr, this is on goddamn CNN. “We asked you to choose from six story ideas, all of which originated with readers.” A fine idea for an English class assignment, or a social media post, but that is the opposite of how journalism is supposed to work. He’s not asking to investigate something, he’s saying “I picked six stories, what do you want me to do first?” Literally, “stories”. Fuck me.
“The votes are in — and the first story I’ll report for CNN’s new ‘2 degrees’ series is on rising sea levels and the coming ‘climate refugee’ crisis…. That question got 3,602 votes, the most of any of the reader-suggested topics. In total, 11,408 people cast ballots on Facebook as part of this little exercise in democratic journalism. Here’s how the rest of the votes shook out: Animal extinction: 3,257 Arctic sea-ice loss: 1,876 California’s drought: 1,256 Most vulnerable country: 975 Crop failure: 442”
Notice how none of these are “investigate the effects of climate change on x”. That is a foregone conclusion. Predicting the future is beyond question. We’re not here to learn, we’re here to be told a story. So instead of asking about the effects on crops or agriculture, it’s “crop failure”. “But couldn’t global warming be good for crops? Aren’t like greenhouses kind of beneficial for plants?” That question, one that is entirely reasonable, will not be asked. The complexities of what may happen are not worth the discussion. Also, California’s drought is far less an issue of climate change and pretty much entirely an issue of the fact that they are consuming far more freshwater than can be supplied. Climate could be static and they’d still be in the same predicament. If not this year then next.
Anyway, back to the main event:
“I’m recently back from the Marshall Islands — one of the low-lying Pacific island nations that literally could be wiped off the map by climate change and rising seas. Climate change gets couched, especially by skeptics, as an intangible, far-off issue. But meet people who are terrified their country — everything they know — will be drowned beneath the waves, and you can see that this is a crisis, and one that must be addressed immediately. ”
Cf:”‘Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear. ‘Do you not fear Me?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do you not tremble in My presence? For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it.…” -Jeremiah 5:21-22
I was going to go for the New Testament reference, given its familiarity, but I just couldn’t pass up the delightfully fitting reference in verse 22.
This is a common rhetorical trick in news media: going someplace. His going to the Marshall Islands, at least as far as this article is concerned, has added exactly fuck-all insight into the effects of climate change, our certainty of these estimates, means of ameliorating the situation, etc. But he’s /been there/! He’s seen the people. He knows their palpable emotions, and is sharing them with you no strings attached. He’s bringing the “far off and intangible” right to your computer screen, so fuck anyone who has questions. Fun fact: this article does not even contain an interview with an islander. Even if someone from the Marshall Islands saying they’re afraid added to the discussion–which it wouldn’t–we don’t get to hear from them. Because they’re irrelevant; they’re a prop for the author, for CNN. So all the discussion that climate scientists give for forecasts in the decades and centuries that allow time for deliberation are meaningless; if you don’t do something now, all these people will “literally” drown.
Cf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4m-lNi61Rk
“1. Seas already are rising because of climate change.”
Underneath is a graph of change in sea level from 1880 to 2010 measured in centimeters, and it looks pretty linear. Based on the graph, it appears that the sea level has increased 23 cm in 130 years, or about 1.8 millimeters per year. Now at a glance, it seems that the slope of the line increases around 1930, so perhaps to be fair we can say that within the last 80 years the sea level has increased 18 cm, based on the graph, or about 2.25 mm per year. Perhaps I’m just a man of courage, but that doesn’t exactly “scare the shit out” out of me. I mean, sure, that could be bad, over time. but I feel like that’s not going to do anything noticeable within my lifetime. I mean, at that rate, won’t it be 5 centuries before sea levels are even up a noticeable meter? And I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that I’m not the only one who feels that way. Maybe those millimeters really add up in a significant way. Maybe there’s highly probable acceleration that hasn’t hit yet that we should be concerned about. All things I’m sure qualified scientists may be able to comment on, but fuck if we’ll ask those guys.
“2. It’s happening faster than scientists expected, and the collapse of the enormous West Antarctic Ice Sheet now “appears unstoppable,” according to NASA.”
The video is about glaciers moving off of the Antarctic landmass into the ocean. The narrator suggests that it is inevitable. If it were cold enough, sure, maybe it’s stop, but there’s no analysis hear about global warming’s contribution to this, let alone if global warming mitigation strategies could stop it. Not to fault the video, which was nifty. But the message I got from it was “this is just going to happen”. So brace for it? And do I need to be concerned? How fast will this happen? What are the consequences of this? I’d probably like to ask for those figures before I lose my shit.
“3. By the end of the century, scientists expect seas to rise 0.4 to 1.2 meters (1.3 to 3.9 feet), depending on how much we humans keep warming the atmosphere.”
So 2.6 feet, plus or minus 1.3 feet. Or a range of like my shins to the bottom of my chest. I mean maybe that’s a big deal, but having 85 years to prep for oceans going up 3 feet give or take doesn’t sound too terrifying.
” 4. Maybe that doesn’t sound like much — but 147 million to 216 million people worldwide can expect to see their homes submerged or put at risk for regular flooding by 2100.”
This is the first graph I’m actually going to even challenge. I looked up the source of the info which was unhelpfully given only as “climate central”. So I Googled it, clicked on their website… and it wasn’t there on the homepage. Seriously. How hard is it to include a goddamn URL? There are for all practical purposes no sources for any of this. Yes, he gives enough image credit to not be sued, but if you’re goal is to present information, than for fuck’s sake give people links to the fucking information. Did this guy not have to make a works cited page in English class ever? Anyway, my concern with this is where the numbers come from, and how much I can trust them. I mean, we’ve got 85 years to brace for a meter. I feel like flooding isn’t going to be immediate. It’s not as if it’s coming all at once. If it just shot up a meter one unassuming day in 2100, sure, I can see people being hosed. But can’t people just move buildings back slightly? or maybe build some sea walls, or something? I mean this may be a genuine concern, but I have what I think is valid skepticism for the numbers, and a little detail would be nice.
#5 is a subset of 4, and my same criticisms apply. Also, how is it that a 1 meter rise results in all those displaced homes?
“6. Some remote, island nations also would start disappearing — since many, including Kiribati, the Maldives and the Marshall Islands, sit just above sea level.”
For my criticism of this, I’ll refer you to a video by a guy who covers climate change–and if you are still a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming, I’ll recommend his whole series; I think he does a great job addressing a lot of common objections.
I.e., there is more at play than global warming. How much of a roll will warming have, how fast will it act, how accurately can we predict this, etc.
“7. Some “climate refugees” from these countries won’t have anywhere to go. International laws don’t protect them, so industrialized countries — those contributing to climate change — won’t have to let them cross their borders to seek asylum.”
Yeah, there are no international laws legally compelling any nation to accept refugees. And yet every day nations accept refugees anyway without being legally obligated. The US takes in about 69,000 refugees a year. As it happens, that pretty much exactly the total number of people living in the Marshal Islands. And it’s a drop in the pan compared to the million legal immigrants that come in every year. So it sounds like the US wouldn’t have too much trouble. Hell, US aid is already the economic backbone of the island nation itself, sending tens of millions in aid every year. It wouldn’t seem terribly difficult for the US to just relocate the populace. So should I write my congressman? Tedious, sure, but not scary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands#Economy
http://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics
“8. This is a financial concern as well. Rising seas pose a serious economic threat to the millions living in at-risk coastal cities.”
The image says that it will cost $1 trillion by 2050. In the absence of a “how”, though, let alone a “how sure” I’m left incredulous and not very terrified.
“9. In terms of dollars at risk, Guangzhou, China, in the Pearl River Delta, is more vulnerable to sea-level rise than any other city in the world, according to the World Bank. Many of the most vulnerable cities should look familiar, especially to Americans. After Guangzhou, Miami, New York and New Orleans are next. “
Again, kind of want to know how the hell they came up with that number. And then the follow up is going to be, “which costs more, dealing with climate change, or preventing it?” Because that is a serious question, and what does scare the shit out of me is that he’s not bringing things like that up.
” 10. Miami is in serious trouble. To imagine its possible futures, play with this map from Climate Central. ”
So this image, as well as the next two, apparently lets you see the waterline of the city if the sea level gets raised a certain number of feet. Miami is the first one, and I’ll grant that it does look like an awful lot of it will be unusable if the water level rises 10 feet. But that’s not the estimate we were told, we were told ~3 by 2100. You move the slider up 3 feet and it doesn’t look too horrendous. Looks bearable to me for 85 years. Same with New York City. I mean Jersey starts to flood when you pull the slider up, but I mean I’m not opposed to that. And again, not terribly scary at the projected 3 feet rise in a century. The Houston map honestly doesn’t look bad at all, even with a ten foot rise.
” 13. Sea levels are slow to respond to the warming climate — so the most troublesome effects may not be seen for centuries. Even if warming is limited to 2 degrees, which is the international goal, seas could be expected to rise nearly 3 meters (9.8 feet) by 2300, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.”
“…most troublesome effects may not be seen for centuries.” That, uh, does not scare the shit out of me. humans have done a lot in the preceding centuries. If we keep up the pace, there’s no telling what we’ll have accomplished technologically and economically centuries in the future. Plus, it’s unlikely I’ll be here for that (although that does scare me, I’ll admit).
“14. And crossing certain “tipping points” — such as the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet — could cause seas to rise much more dramatically in the long term.”
And our likelihood of doing so is?
“15. If Greenland melts completely, which could happen in 140 years, according to ‘Six Degrees,’ by science writer Mark Lynas, then ‘Miami would disappear entirely, as would most of Manhattan.’ ‘Central London would be flooded. Bangkok, Bombay and Shanghai would also lose most of their area,’ he writes in that book. ‘In all, half of humanity would have to move to higher ground.'”
Wait, I thought we were dealing with 2 degrees! What gives? You’ll forgive me if I don’t take a couple quotes from a book from someone who isn’t even a climate scientist as gospel truth. If these are plausible scenarios in the near future, I’d like to hear about the evidence given for that by professionals, and I don’t think that’s terribly unreasonable.
“But here’s the good news: All of these risks are lessened — or eliminated — if we stop burning fossil fuels and chopping down carbon-gulping forests. It’s possible to address this crisis.”
Oh? There are no other even anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gasses? And how the fuck is that good news? You realise what would happen to our economy and standard of living if we ” stop burning fossil fuels and chopping down carbon-gulping forests”, right? That’s an awfully flippant “solution”.
” There are signs of hope. This week, Germany’s Angela Merkel, for example, pressed world leaders to boost their pledges to cut carbon emissions ahead of international negotiations. The so-called ‘climate chancellor’ wants industrialized countries to end fossil fuel use by 2100, according to The Guardian.”
Under what authority? Under what practicality? I mean /that/ might scare the shit out of me. Where in the fuck are we supposed to get all that energy that we’re currently using? And if you say “alternative sources”, explain to me how we can get those for the same price, otherwise we’re looking at a massive cost of living rise. The US sure as hell won’t tolerate it. You think the industrializing world is going to? “Hey, China, you should let you economy just stop growing.” Yeah, that’ll go over well. Also, why the implication that cutting emissions is the /only/ solution? What about addressing problems as they come up? What about geoengineering the climate to solve the problems piecemeal (artificial global cooling, for example?) What about investing in scientific research in the hopes of increasing energy efficiency? All of these questions have a ton of material that could be looked into, but no. We get a fucking 15 sentences-cum-pictures–not even gifs! That’s not journalism, that’s bullshit.