Following what has come to be known as the Great Flood of 1993, the federal government took steps to guard against a repeat of the destruction on some of the worst hit and most vulnerable areas. In Monroe County, the entire town of Valmeyer was moved to higher ground.
If any good is to come of the current disaster, the federal government must take similar action. This would not involve moving a town, but instead would emphasize the purpose of the New Madrid Floodway and discourage rebuilding there. Like the 1937 emergency that forced the last intentional levee blast, the current hardship easily could fade into oblivion if another 74 years passes before the floodway must be used to save towns upriver.
Fair point but is there any other reason why we might want to prepare for more catastrophic flooding? Perhaps some indication that it might happen more often and be more severe than in the past? Maybe a warning from the world's scientific community that we won't have to wait another 74 years this time? A reason to think that even saving the city of Cairo is a lost cause in the long run?
I understand that any local news outlet which makes the connection between the series of recent 100-year weather events and climate change will be inundated with angry cries of "liberal bias." Reality can be controversial. But there's a point when refusing to acknowledge the connection scientists have made is misleading and irresponsible.
Two blogs had me thinking about this before reading the SJR's editorial.
First, from Think Progress: Top Climate Scientist On The Monster Tornadoes: ‘It Is Irresponsible Not To Mention Climate Change’
Dr. Kevin Trenberth, one of the world’s top climate scientists, who has been exploring for years how greenhouse pollution influences extreme weather, said he believes that it is “irresponsible not to mention climate change” in the context of these extreme tornadoes.
Carl Pope's latest blog post points out the obvious trend.
Last year we had floods the size of England in Pakistan, drought and heat that burned more than 300,000 acres and destroyed the entire wheat crop in Russia. Observers called it "the Year of Extreme Weather." Now, in the spring of 2011, it's America's turn. The odds that we are having three different "once-in-a-century" weather disasters in the same region in the same month would be incredibly small -- unless, as climate scientists have been warning, these extremes are no longer "once-in-a-century."
The U.S. weather system has now been bulked up by climate pollution like an athlete on steroids, so that it can unleash what were previously very rare hyper-weather events on a regular basis. A warmer climate does not just raise the thermometer; it also stores more energy, which kicks up extreme winds and carries more water vapor to power bigger storms. Just as a pot of sauce gets violent when it boils, we are seeing the weather do the same.
The politics of confronting climate change is made more difficult when regional news outlets fail to point out relationships and refuse to acknowledge the real issue. Mississippi River towns and Midwestern farmers will suffer just as much as coastal cities and perhaps sooner than many realized. We need newspapers to be honest about that.