To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
An independent investigation found Monday that the Trump-appointed leader of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and another former official violated the agency's scientific integrity policy last year when they released a statement backing up the president's claim that Hurricane Dorian was expected to hit Alabama.
Last September, Trump claimed Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated" by the Category 5 hurricane, contradicting meteorologists' projections that the storm would mainly affect Florida.
After the National Weather Service's Birmingham, Alabama office tweeted that the president's claim was inaccurate, the president appeared in the Oval Office to display a map altered with a black marker to show the storm's path extended to include Alabama, in an incident widely derided as "Sharpiegate."
"We're about to be in another hurricane season and we're going to have more natural disasters like pandemics and there don't seem to be any consequences for manipulating the science, and that puts real communities, real people at risk."
--Andrew Rosenberg, Union of Concerned Scientists
According to the report Monday from the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), acting administrator Neil Jacobs and then-deputy chief of staff and communications director Julie Kay Roberts bowed to political pressure two days after the president's Oval Office appearance when they released a statement rebuking the National Weather Service.
"The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time," said the statement.
NOAA's scientific integrity policy prohibits political interference in the agency's communications about its scientific findings. NAPA found that Roberts and Jacobs, a Trump appointee, violated the agency's code for science supervision and management by releasing the statement, which "compromised NOAA's integrity and reputation as an independent scientific agency."
"Dr. Jacobs and Julie Roberts did not believe it was a good idea to release a statement, but felt significant external pressure to do so," wrote Stephen M. Volz, NOAA's assistant administrator for satellite and information services, in a memo attached to NAPA's final report.
The report did not recommend any consequences for Jacobs and Roberts, instead recommending "scientific integrity training" at the agency and calling on the Commerce Department's inspector general to investigate such violations.
Andrew Rosenberg, a former NOAA administrator who joined two current employees and Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) in calling on NAPA to investigate "Sharpiegate," expressed frustration that Roberts and Jacobs would not be held accountable for their actions.
"This is important stuff," Rosenberg, who now leads the Union for Concerned Scientists, toldThe Hill. "We're about to be in another hurricane season and we're going to have more natural disasters like pandemics and there don't seem to be any consequences for manipulating the science, and that puts real communities, real people at risk."
The report was released following numerous reports of Covid-19 infection and death rates being manipulated by state public health officials. Rebekah Jones, a government data scientist in Florida, said in May that she was fired for refusing to manipulate numbers "to drum up support for the plan to reopen."
In early May, the White House Council of Economic Advisors released a model showing Covid-19 deaths falling to zero by May 15. Since May 15, there have been about 20,000 new cases detected in the U.S. per day, and deaths have gone up to more than 116,000.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has just released its Atlantic hurricane season outlook for 2020, forecasting an above-average hurricane season with 13-19 named storms, of which 6-10 could turn into hurricanes. Of these hurricanes, 3-6 could become major. If the outlook projections materialize, 2020 would be the fifth year in a row with above-normal tropical cyclone activity. In addition, the NOAA outlook comes on the heels of the first named Atlantic tropical storm of the season, Arthur, which - for the sixth year in a row - formed before the official start of hurricane season, June 1.
The United States is reeling from the novel coronavirus pandemic, with over 1.5 million cases and roughly 93,500 deaths nationally as of this writing. The full economic and social impacts of both the disease and the measures to contain it are still not clear, as the situation is in constant flux, but we do know it will take a long time for people and the country to recover. And while there is increasing pressure for the states to reopen for the sake of the economy, and stay-at-home orders and other restrictions are being lifted, doing so too soon may lead to a fall second wave of the disease. While we cannot say what the situation of the pandemic will be in the coming months, we do know hurricane season is about to start and its risks will only grow and potentially compound any impacts from the pandemic.
The NOAA outlook mirrors the Colorado State University forecast released in April. Both base their predictions mainly on the absence of an El Nino throughout the summer, in addition to above-average tropical and subtropical sea surface temperatures. El Nino has been linked to increased westerly winds that prevent optimal conditions for hurricanes to form in the tropical Atlantic, while warmer-than-average sea surface waters act like fuel for hurricanes to gain strength, as warm waters bring with them more humidity and other conditions conducive to the formation of hurricanes.
Scientists have compared the conditions this year to those in 2005, when 28 storms developed in the Atlantic and Katrina made landfall, and believe that this could be the most dangerous season since then.
There is definitive evidence that climate change is making hurricane seasons progressively worse, as I describe in a previous blog. If the past five hurricane seasons have taught us anything, it is that hurricanes are becoming stronger, wetter, slower, and more destructive, and all these trends have been linked to anthropogenic global warming.
A just-released study found that, in the period between 1979 and 2017, global warming increased the likelihood of a given tropical cyclone becoming a Category 3-5 by roughly 8 percent per decade. Hurricanes are also intensifying faster compared to historical records - we saw that with hurricanes Harvey (2017), Michael (2018), and Lorenzo (2019), and just this week with cyclone Amphan in the Bay of Bengal, located to the East of India.
A National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) study also found that storms could reach farther inland with stronger winds and more rainfall. For these reasons alone, it is extremely important that hurricane preparedness takes into account the pandemic constraints and compound risks. The administration, federal agencies and local and state governments must have disaster relief plans and resources in place.
While hurricane season is upon us, flood, wildfires, and of course, it being summer, extreme heat also threaten to overtax federal disaster relief in the coming months. The NOAA running list of billion dollar disasters includes many instances of hurricanes, as well as wildfires, floods, storms, and other extreme weather events. With the potential for several of these disasters to happen simultaneously throughout hurricane season, the capacity for response if a hurricane hits may be significantly diminished.
The map below is a view of the pandemic projections as of June 27th, early in hurricane season. Projections show that roughly 8.7 million people may be infected altogether in the states at risk of hurricane impacts if there is a 20 percent weekly reduction in social contact.
Highest risk for hurricanes is usually in states from the Mid-Atlantic coast down to Florida and along the Gulf coast to Texas. However, New England states are not completely out of the woods, as since 1938 seven hurricanes have made landfall in the region. New England and many inland states have also been impacted by hurricanes after landfall, especially due to extreme precipitation and floods, even if they've been downgraded to tropical storms.
As of the 2019 hurricane season, an estimated 7.2 million homes were at risk of storm surge damage in states along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, with Florida, Texas and Louisiana topping the list, and numbers should be similar this year. NOAA estimated in 2010 that 39 percent of the U.S. population resided in coastal shoreline counties.
Map shows the difference in the number of COVID-19 cases between the scenario used for the Florida map below and one in which there's just the 20% weekly reduction-no increase in social contact in reopening counties. These are total number of cases rather than the confirmed number of cases. Data source: https://github.com/shaman-lab/COVID-19Projection
Florida is one of the most vulnerable states when it comes to hurricanes. A recent study by Florida Atlantic University (FAU) showed that 10 of its 67 counties - mostly in the Panhandle and including some of the hardest hit by hurricane Michael in 2018 - are woefully unprepared for hurricane season evacuations, especially one about to occur in the midst of a pandemic. When you add projections of coronavirus infections for those counties (see figure below), the picture is grim - and that is just one state. Being prepared for both hurricanes and COVID-19 is a tall order for any state, sure, but state priorities now need to be identifying and filling the most dangerous gaps in their preparedness, in light of compound risks and hazards.
Projections are the total number of COVID-19 cases by June 27th and are based on a scenario in which: 20% weekly reduction in social contact in counties where cases are increasing + 10% weekly increase in contact for counties that have reopened, with the latter overriding the former. Map of evacuation preparedness by FAU (https://cues.fau.edu/research/evacuation/). Projections data source: https://github.com/shaman-lab/COVID-19Projection
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the agency in charge of COVID-19 response and recovery for all states and territories. It is also responsible for hurricane emergency preparedness, emergency response, and disaster recovery. The intersection of the pandemic with hurricane season is unprecedented and unfortunate, as it will play out as FEMA's resources and staff are stretched thin with the pandemic response and a series of disasters since 2017, which will make it harder for the agency to rise to the challenge of simultaneously occurring disasters. FEMA has prepared specific guidance for hurricane preparedness in a COVID-19 era, and its Administrator stated that they are planning for safe evacuation, protection of vulnerable segments of the population, and the possibility of other simultaneous disasters and compound risks, such as wildfires. Read more about hurricane and COVID-19 preparedness and response policies and solutions in my colleague Rachel Cleetus' blog.
In addition to government assistance, we know people's socio-economic status contributes to disaster preparedness and recovery, as well as their ability to cope and make sound decisions. A project started 10 years after Katrina's landfall looked for long-term predictors of resilience, and found a range of factors that seem to help with resilience and recovery after a disaster: financial resources, yes, but also social and cultural ties, and access to stable housing after the event appeared to be important factors. Those are important to consider in an emergency, when a community is asked to evacuate, and also in their decision to return. After Katrina, many people relocated, particularly to the Houston area, but one study based on American Community Survey data found that one year after landfalling, roughly 53 percent of New Orleans adult residents were back, many to their original housing.
The various measures to limit movement in and across states add to those decisions: where could people go safely, if they can evacuate?
A scenario where many people don't evacuate at all is not out of the question either, as evacuating necessitates resources many may not have - transportation, lodging, money. Sheltering in place is also a resource-intensive endeavor, where people may see an increase in electricity bills, food consumption, and other expenses. How can people who have been laid off because of the COVID-19 crisis cope when they are low on cash?
We know Latinos and Blacks are becoming unemployed during the current economic crisis at higher rates than Whites and others, and many in these population segments are also harder hit by COVID-19. People of color and those struggling with low incomes are also historically hit differentially and harder by disaster such as hurricanes and floods, and the way relief is handled makes it more difficult for them to rebound.
Identification of those most vulnerable to these compound risks has to be an integral part of any disaster response plan--a lesson we should have learned from past disasters such as Katrina.
Over one million people were under evacuation orders as Hurricane Dorian approached the U.S. last year. Imagine one million people on the move right now, all trying to find safe shelter. Emergency response officials need to develop COVID-19-safe evacuation plans, with safe locations and enforced social distancing, taking into consideration those most vulnerable socially and economically. Communities should also learn about preparing now for this unique hurricane season, so that together, everyone comes out safe and well.
The climate crisis has moved into everyday life and it can feel overwhelming.
Hurricane Dorian, which left more than 70,000 people homeless, was an instance of this climate breakdown. A hotter ocean means stronger storms, a higher sea means worse flooding, a hotter atmosphere means more rain. Worsening wildfires in California and elsewhere, devastating flooding in our agricultural heartland, swaths of dead forest in the Rockies, the global collapse of coral reefs -- these are just a few examples of the long and lengthening list of the catastrophic impacts of climate breakdown.
The evidence that human-caused global heating is dangerously disrupting Earth systems is unequivocal, and it no longer takes a scientist to see this. Denying this reality puts billions of lives at risk, and will surely come to be condemned by history.
Faced with this reality, it may be tempting to say, "We're doomed," as Jonathan Franzen recently suggested. This view comes from a deep misconception about how the crisis is likely to unfold. We will not suddenly pass a tipping point to doom at 2deg Celsius of global heating above preindustrial levels, as Franzen incorrectly claims. Instead, climate breakdown exists on a continuum where every 10th of a degree of additional heating means more death and suffering. No matter how bad it gets, we must keep doing everything we can to keep it from getting worse.
My own climate wakeup call came about 13 years ago when, as a physics graduate student at Columbia, I heard a lecture by the climatologist James Hansen. His talk terrified me even through its scientific jargon, and led me to begin reading the peer-reviewed climate literature. Around the same time, my first child was born.
My love for my son made his future mine. This love expanded to include all the life on this planet, this marvelous spaceship. I felt a sense of responsibility to do something, but I didn't know what. I felt confused and panicked.
As my awareness grew, I went through stages of grief. I've cried over ecosystems disintegrating, over the looming possibility of social breakdown, over the scale of suffering and death this will unleash. Letting in the grief allowed me to reach acceptance and get to work. I switched careers from astrophysics to climate science -- and I changed my life.
I realized that bringing my actions into alignment with my principles could reduce my panic and cognitive dissonance. Reducing my carbon emissions was something concrete I could do, and it turned out to be interesting and fun.
In 2010, I examined my carbon footprint and realized that most of my emissions came from flying and food, so I became vegetarian, found ways to cut food waste, and started flying less. I also began to bike and discovered a love for gardening and growing fruit. These and other changes turned out to be so satisfying and joyful to me that I started going out into the community to let others know.
Over three years, I reduced my emissions to about a 10th of an average American's. It wasn't always convenient, and if there were carbon-free planes, I'd probably fly once a year or so. But overall, I prefer my lower carbon life. It's slower and less hectic, and more connected to the Earth and to my community. But while I like it much better, I have no illusions that it represents a solution.
Instead, after years of activism, it's extremely clear to me that the most important thing any one of us can do is to raise our voices to shift the culture as much as possible. We need mass global climate mobilization -- the faster we transition to a carbon-free civilization, the better. To unlock collective action, we need people to view climate breakdown with the urgency it merits, and to view burning fossil fuels and clearing forests as socially unacceptable. We need a billion climate activists.
Burning less fossil fuel in our own lives is one way to empower our voices. I've found that taking this step makes my voice more authentic and allows me to speak out more freely. Actions do speak more loudly than words, and the fact that I feel this is urgent enough to change my lifestyle isn't lost on my audience.
While I think using less fossil fuel will benefit anyone who is concerned about climate breakdown (and this should be everyone!), I realize it isn't easy. But there are many other ways to empower your voice. I've started to talk about climate breakdown every chance I get -- with friends, family, colleagues, supermarket cashiers and other activists.
Anyone can do this, and it will naturally connect you with communities of climate activists, such as FridaysForFuture, Sunrise Movement, Citizens' Climate Lobby, 350.org and Extinction Rebellion. On Friday, Sept. 20, young people around the world will be holding a global climate strike to demand action. Joining a community of activists adds your voice powerfully to a chorus of other voices, helps you become quickly informed, and helps you stay sane as you deal with some very challenging knowledge.
As you get more experience, use your creativity. I've been working to move people in academia toward flying less. We can all use our unique skills and interests to move the needle. At this point, it also makes sense to bring lawsuits against industry and government. It's rational to practice nonviolent civil disobedience. These are all forms of speech that can make a difference.
For me, it has been a long road and I often felt like a lone voice in the wilderness. But my journey isn't all that remarkable. What it requires is a willingness to stare this monster straight in the eye and then rise up to protect what we love about this wondrous place.
Today, despite all the grim climate news, I actually feel more optimistic than ever. People are waking up! Maybe there's a bit of panic, but that's a sensible response and a good place to start. I'm hopeful we'll see broad climate mobilization and systems transformation at a pace and scale I wouldn't have dared dream of even a year ago. Together, we're on our way to becoming those billion climate activists.