Yesterday, Bret Stephens used his New York Times column for one of the most callous and tone-deaf Harvey takes we’ve seen anywhere (including in the deniersphere proper). In the piece, good ol’ Bret praises capitalism and wealth for helping people survive disasters like Harvey, but ignores the fundamental moral failing of climate inaction: some countries grew rich and developed thanks to unchecked fossil fuel use, while those countries now developing are forced to deal with the worst of the impacts they did little or nothing to cause.
Unsurprisingly, Twitter was quick to call out both the framing and the factual errors in Stephen’s “hurricane apologism” and how the choice of image for the column, a sinking Mercedes Benz, “perfectly encapsulates” Stephens’ priorities.
So, as Stephens states, Harvey may just be a “speed bump” for Houston’s economy in the long run. At least 39 people died during that “speed bump,” which is a heartless way to describe the economic losses stemming from flooded homes and lives lost. But hurricane victims and climate activists should be comforted, Stephens seems to suggest, by the fact that disaster losses as a percentage of global wealth have held steady since 1990, using Pielke Jr.’s favorite (deceptive) statistics. Pielke’s general argument is that an increase in damages is due to an increase in national wealth (more buildings) that extreme weather hits. But that’s just one side of the coin, the other being that we’re building stronger buildings, which are more resilient to extreme weather. Those more resilient buildings reduce the impact of extreme weather, but that doesn’t factor into Pielke’s figures.
This financial framing, borne of privilege, faithful to wealth and minimizing of the experiences of millions who suffer, is a prime example of how measuring disasters in dollars only tells part of the story.
But even if one accepts this framing, it still ignores the fact that developing countries will take a significant hit to their GDP from climate change. So Stephens’s sage advice that these countries get richer to deal with climate change manages to be both emotionally and intellectually shallow.
Stephens’s handling of climate change is disappointing given the excellent work folks on the reporting side are doing at the Times. Their coverage of Harvey has captured the emotional weight of disaster, discussed the complexities of urban development and provided historical context from Sandy survivors. The Times was one of the first major outlets to thoroughly and correctly explain Harvey’s climate connection. And the editorial board has provided sympathetic and nuanced takes of their own on the connection between Harvey and climate.
Unfortunately, Stephens’s piece slots neatly into a strange parade of oddities this week from the Times’s editorial page that kicked up a torrent of criticism. One columnist got taken to task for an uninformed and inappropriate piece on cultural appropriation. Another op-ed critical of Chelsea Manning was rightly trashed for being dehumanizing, “error-ridden and transphobic.” And, of course, the Internet had a ball dragging the decision to give Blackwater founder Erik Prince space to advertise his company’s services as a mercenary, with a plan for Afghanistan that even other private military contractors think is offensive and unworkable.
Given that the Times advertised itself as a counterweight to alternative facts, it seems weird that their opinion page has chosen to echo the baser instincts of fake news outlets by choosing to publish pieces downplaying climate impacts, are rooted in racial ignorance, espouse error-ridden transphobia or offer up offensive and unrealistic industry shilling.
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories: