It’s been two months since Superstorm Sandy hit the east coast of the U.S. Along with the physical and emotional devastation, Sandy left us wondering how a natural disaster could leave such destruction to an area that, historically, has not seen anything like it.
In part due to Sandy, the climate change debate reignited.
Why did it take Sandy?
Varying other events have made us address climate change–and from global warming to greenhouse gas emissions, the topic of climate change has always been up for discussion. However, after Superstorm Sandy, the conversation seemed to explode. In the first 24 hours of the storm, 3.5 million tweets were sent. The presidential election came to a halt. Countries took notice and launched relief efforts.
But why did it take an event like Sandy for us to have such an intense response? After all, this isn’t the first time the United States has faced a natural disaster. Perhaps it was the fact that the northeast faced its second major storm in the past 14 months. Perhaps because parts of the United States that weren’t considered hurricane hotspots now are. Most importantly, perhaps seeing what events like Sandy can do to our infrastructure, as well as our citizens, has finally made an impact.
Are we more swayed to the idea of climate change?
By some reports, Superstorm Sandy re-triggered the climate change blame game. However, the conversation is undoubtedly swayed in one direction. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said it simply: “Anyone who thinks there isn’t a change in weather patterns is denying reality.”
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had similar feelings. In his endorsement of President Obama, he relayed that “while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of [climate change], the risk that it may be — given the devastation it is wreaking — should be enough to compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”
Not only are these leaders acknowledging this is actually a problem, they suggest something needs to be done about it. Changing attitudes is the first step to taking action.
Leaders, what will you do about it?
Recognition and finally taking action toward climate change are great first steps. However, as with any major issue, leaders need to explore multiple options. What do the people think? Do they believe climate change is real? What are their feelings toward enabling stricter laws, such as embracing renewable energy?
Researching the opinions of the people on resources like PeopleCount.org is a great way to figure this out. For instance, if your constituents have no idea about the issue of climate change, they need to learn about it. If they don’t want to commit to certain laws, leaders should understand why. If the people are already on-board about change, leaders can act, confident the people will follow.
Leaders will never know where to stand if they don’t do their research to figure out the stances of the people first. In the end, Superstorm Sandy may have opened our eyes towards climate change a little more, but our elected officials should still find out how their constituents feel. Actively seeking out resources where they can do so is how this can happen.
What do you think? Did Sandy open your eyes to climate change? What can we do about it?
It is good to explore people’s opinions, but in the case of climate change, what if certain people are wrong, but still want their leaders to follow them and represent their views in making legislation? I think that there are issues such as climate change that require a different tactic – one in which the public needs to be educated in a positive way that climate change may very well be a reality that we all have to deal with, so starting to plan now for it would be the best option. I feel that if it were a medical issue, people would want their leaders to vote for the best options and research, because they would be concerned about getting the best medical care for an illness. Medical science and climate science are not too different in this regard. We should all strive to do what is best for the earth, and not make it a political issue, but accept it as a scientific fact. The real question then should be, what can we do now – we are all in this boat together, and how can we mitigate its affects so that our future is safe?
Yes, “Is climate change occurring?” is a question that seems to have right and wrong answers. Still, different people have different answers. If the country tries to move on this issue thinking we all agree, when some don’t, it’ll be harder. So let’s let people say what they think so we can deal with the different opinions.
For instance, our leaders might say that though some disagree on climate change, moving to renewable energy created domestically will help our balance of payments, create jobs, lower gas and oil demand and thus prices, and lower pollution, so it has benefits even if the predominant climate science answer is wrong. If our leaders think everyone believes global warming is a huge threat, we might not bother with these arguments. And, if they think that only 50% believe it’s a threat, they’ll think it’s politically dangerous to take much action.
The profiles can be updated, corrected. I’m hoping most people believe what’s true, and as others see what the majority thinks, they’ll take the time to learn more and consider changing their opinion.