It's hard hearing the cracking voices of our countrymen and women from the Florida Panhandle whose lives have been turned inside out by Hurricane Michael. Some of lost their homes or businesses; some lost both. There were 17 American deaths, 8 in Florida, attributed to the strongest hurricane to strike the Panhandle in recorded history, the third strongest to ever hit the U.S. mainland. It made landfall near Mexico Beach as a Category 4 storm. Insured damage is estimated to be $8 billion so far. Damages to Mexico Beach and Panama City in FL-02 was pretty catastrophic.Last night the BBC reported that Mexico Beach was virtually flattened and nearly wiped off the map. The Columbia Journalism Review called it a climate change story, even though the initial reporting on Michael by the NY Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal failed to mention Climate Change at all. None of the reporting I saw did either. "This is particularly disappointing," wrote Pete Vernon, "because, just days before Michael made landfall, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report with a dismal assessment of current global conditions and a warning that the future, soon approaching, is much more dire than previously feared."
Climate scientists are cautious not to directly link rising sea levels and warming temperatures to any individual storm, but a basic theory holds: warmer water and air, along with rising sea levels, will lead to storms of greater intensity. Even though a straight line between climate change and Michael cannot yet be drawn (researchers will later be able to model the actual intensity of the storm compared to computer generated models), coverage of major storms that fails to address profound environmental problems fails to provide audiences with a full picture.As our understanding of the impact of climate change expands, some journalists have taken up the challenge of bringing the topic into the discussion of storms like Michael. “Hurricane Michael isn’t a truly ‘natural disaster,’ John D. Sutter, a CNN investigative reporter, wrote. “Neither was Harvey in Houston. Nor Maria in Puerto Rico. Yet we continue to use that term. Doing so-- especially in the era of climate change-- is misleading if not dangerous.” In Thursday’s Times, Henry Fountain, a climate reporter, explained the “triple threat from climate change: more rain in larger storms on rising seas.” The Atlantic’s Robertson Meyer explained how Michael’s sudden growth could be tied to rising sea levels and warming waters, writing that “scientists won’t formally know whether climate change played a role in Michael’s rapid intensification for several months. But local weather experts have already said Michael is exactly what they would expect to see in a climate-changed world.”Writing on the UN report, the Post’s Margaret Sullivan argued that “when it comes to climate change, we-- the media, the public, the world-- need radical transformation, and we need it now.” That transformation could include reporting on climate changes impact on any number of issues, from the economy to immigration to warfare. With the country focused on coverage of Michael’s destruction, the opportunity to bring climate change into the discussion is there for the taking, and it shouldn’t be ignored.
The congressman who represents Mexico Beach and Panama City is freshman Republican Neal Dunn, who replaced wretched Blue Dog Gwen Graham, who fled the area when redistricting made it harder for a Democrat to win. Although Dunn is probably best known for having an office lousy with sexual harassment, he also has a record as a legislator. Basically, he's just a Trump-worshipping backbencher in a safe red district. The PVI is R+18 and Trump won the district 66.2% to 30.6%. Dunn beat his Democratic opponent, Walter Dartland, 67.3% to 29.9%, after dumping $567,701 of his own money into the race. This cycle he's facing Bob Rackleff who's raised $165,478 to Dunn's $1,182,655. The 538 Forecaster gives Dunn a better than 99 in 100 chance to win next month.Ironically, Dunn is on the House Science Committee. The League of Conservation Voters gives him a 3% environmental score. As for climate change, he's, proudly, a denier. In April 2016 he told the Panama City News Herald that he's "sure human activity plays some role, but I don't think the science is clear on how much is man-made and how much is natural. What I do know is that the United States should not follow the path of the global warming alarmists like the Obama administration who wants us to unilaterally handicap... industry with over-burdensome EPA regulations." There's no pulse left in Mexico Beach at all and it will be months before most of his district recovers.Most of the Florida congressmembers, like Dunn, are virulent Climate Change deniers, who all oppose regulating the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Our top scientific institutions, the U.S. military, NASA, NOAA, and nearly all credible experts say pollution is causing our planet to get warmer. Still, false information designed to discredit climate science is actively promoted by organizations with ties to fossil fuels, and many leaders in Congress are also spreading disinformation for political reasons. While fossil fuel companies are generating enormous profits, we ultimately will bear the costs associated with extreme weather and rising sea levels. Representatives for Florida in the United States Congress have an important role in supporting efforts to solve the issue. They are virtually all Climate Change deniers, including Ron DeSantis, currently running for Governor. Republican voters don't seem to connect the dots... yet.There's no reason to believe Dunn will get any fewer votes than he would have before the Hurricane-- except for the 8 who died in his district. I wonder what it will take to wake these folks up. I especially would love to see how folks in Mexico Beach vote in November.
