WHEN Superstorm Sandy hit the east coast of the US on October 29, it not only flooded the New York City subway and became the most important factor for 15 per cent of US voters in the presidential election a week later.
It also resurrected the unwarranted claim that global warming was to blame for such events, together with the morally irresponsible argument that we should help future hurricane victims by cutting CO2 emissions.
Sandy underscored a fundamental question for all parts of the world that are affected by hurricanes. If we want to reduce hurricane damage, should we focus primarily on a very cheap solution that would enable us to handle storm surges much better within a few years? Or should we pursue an incredibly expensive solution that would require almost 100 years to avoid 9mm of 7.5m surges?
The morally defensible answer is clear, and it has nothing to do with immediate reductions in CO2 emissions.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Because there is more money in for them in the long run, they have to keep that gravy train rolling. There is nothing they can do to stop another storm like this from happening, but the saying “never let a good crisis go to waste” works wonders fer their talking points. And again that’s why you see the twit McKitten and Al get all giddy when they see storms like that coming.
That is also why they encourage rebuilding in known strike zones, where the most damage will be done.
Job security!
Or should we pursue and incredibly wasteful and expensive solution that won’t do jack in terms of improving the weather?
Eco-worriers sort of skipped the Enlightenment so aren’t really big on logical thought processes.