The New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert argues that while it is impossible to determine if Sandy is the result of climate change, it is definitely fits the "general pattern in North America, and indeed around the world, toward more extreme weather, a pattern that, increasingly, can be attributed to climate change."
Meanwhile, with Sandy looking like "what climate scientists have been warning about for years," David Rothkopf is hopeful that it may finally force presidential runners to discuss climate change.
Sandy will do more to draw attention to issues of climate change than all the candidates running for every office in the United States during this election cycle have done. While it's impossible to attribute her size or impact to man-made origins, it is also impossible not to wonder whether the recent frequency of large storms is related to the growing oceans of data about the reality of global warming. Sandy looks like what climate scientists have been warning about for years.
Remember Hurricane Katrina? She may or may not have been triggered by man-made climate change. But she certainly forced climate back into the national discussion for an extended period. Sandy will do likewise. Certainly, given the sad virtual silence about the issue from our presidential contenders -- which amounts to nothing less than a planet-wide risk of the first order -- Sandy's intervention in this regard is welcome, if hugely and tragically costly.
No comments found