It's sadly ironic that one of the strongest regions of global warming deniers is the south/southwest of the US - with Texas being one of the top denier states. One can't help but wonder what folks there are now thinking about Hurricane Harvey's relationship to climate change?
Some contend that government weather modification operations and general climate change increased the severity of the storm. We've been hearing for years that warmer seas evaporate more quickly. Warmer air holds more water vapor. So, as temperatures rise around the world, the skies store more moisture and dump it more intensely. There is a proven link – known as the Clausius-Clapeyron equation – which shows that for every half a degree Celsius in warming, there is about a 3% increase in atmospheric moisture content.
Houston is the most populous city in the state of Texas and the fourth-most populous city in the United States. It has a population of 2.3 million and an area of 667 square miles (1,730 km). This hurricane has caused major havoc and it will be incredibly difficult and expensive to recover from this massive storm any time soon.
As I've listened to a bit of the news reports on the radio (I don't watch TV so I can't talk about what they are saying on the boob tube) Texas officials have called the storm a 1,000 year flood event. So they do acknowledge that this 'event' is not normal but there does seem to be some serious reluctance to mention the connection to climate change.
Even the Pentagon has said that climate change will have serious implications for their operations so clearly, in spite of what they might say, the government does know that climate change is staring us in the face.
My guess is that the ruling elites want to down play global warming because they don't want to 'alarm' the public and have a restless nation demand fundamental change - moving us away from our obvious fossil fuel addiction. The oligarchic forces that control Washington today are in large part the fossil fuel industry and they are more than reluctant to interrupt their profit stream no matter what the consequences.
But ultimately at some point you'd think the public would take this slap across the face by Mother Nature as a serious wake-up call and begin to realize that these kinds of weather 'events' are going to be more common in the coming years and will affect many more of us.
One final word on this climate change issue. Sadly as I scan the landscape of climate change activism it is fairly easy to see that the vast majority of environmental groups working on global warming do not dare go near the issue of the Pentagon's #1 carbon bootprint on the planet.
I can't help but wonder how in the world those groups think they can begin to deal with this mega-issue without calling for the conversion of the war machine this very second?!
Why are they so silent on the military's massive contribution to this coming storm? Shouldn't the public ask them?
Bruce
3 comments:
I agree that we, as the public, should be asking about the military's role in contributing to climate change. But when people aren't even asking about the outrageous spending on the military, or the boondoggles and unaccounted for funds, it's hardly likely.
My own experience has been rather harsh when I have questioned the military in the U.S. I've been ignored, hushed up, punished and ostracized. Nothing makes my fellow Americans more uncomfortable, it seems, than questioning the order of things.
That's probably the reason most Americans aren't asking these questions. Our political landscape has its shibboleths, and questioning our military actions or spending seems to be one of them.
To me, it's outdated to show that kind of unquestioning patriotism or loyalty, especially when it's becoming increasingly clear that wielding our military might supports the truly unbalanced distribution of wealth in this country and in the world.
Excellent words Ariel
The economic reaping of the economic sowing. The most honest assessment of every war (starting at WW2 of course) launched by the US has been to defeat Communism. The Reaganists believe in their heart that they outspent the Russians, breaking the Russian economy. And not even mentioning that the U.S. economy is still paying for the Cold War because they hid the final account deficit by bonds, which pay off in compound interest.
Instead of direct taxation which is paid once and no more. They say it's not taxation but part of every tax/fiscal quarter (day after tomorrow!) is a non-earmarked contingency/slash/discretionary fund paying for everything from replacing the office coffee pot to paying interest on bonds. The biggest beneficiary of the wars has been the Carbon/Nuclear Cartel, hands down.
The Pentagoons put out a report in the early nineties about the economic pressure, thus civil unrest, would cause massive displacement/migration events following the water. People can live for weeks without food. Not comfortably but possible. The drought conditions would prevent you from surviving more than a day or two without water. And all our food depends on water.
Then there are the cyclones. Like Harvey.
predicted in advance by THE major polluter, the Pentagoons.
And from the Reaganite mantra you might glean this, Capital was rescued by destroying the Russian economy. Meaning Capital is so weak it cannot be feasible in the present of alternative economic models.
Post a Comment