Hurricane Sandy, the smallest of silver linings in a sea of clouds?

New York’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg did a very brave thing last week. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy Bloomberg stood up and mentioned the C words while discussing the destruction brought to New York. ‘Our climate is changing’ he said ‘And 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 it, the risk that it might be -- given this week’s devastation -- should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action’. Despite the infuriating equivocation within these words it is still the one of the most direct statements a mainstream politician has given about climate change while still in office. Christmas has come early for the environmental movement.

The Hurricane itself has, it would seem, made climate change a campaign issue. It seems that more than the tragic human impacts of the storm, the politics of it have become a major talking point as the US election clock counts down to midnight. As Bloomberg also pointed out, Mitt Romney and Barak Obama both have green credentials but while Obama has put his money (and obvious legislative power) where his mouth is Romney has performed a spectacular U-turn. The man who brought in emission reducing laws as a state governor is now the presidential candidate infamous for his ‘I’m not here to slow the rise of the oceans’ sound bite. With huge areas of New York inundated with salt water his quip now seems a lot less clever.

 The scientific jury is still out on whether Sandy was ‘caused’ by climate change. Some climate scientists have insisted that New York was the victim of a ‘perfect storm’, with a number of natural phenomenon combining to create the storm. Others (such as the University of Texas Tech’s Katharine Hayhoe) have noted that while the storm may have had natural origins warmer sea surface temperatures and an arctic weather front both linked to climate change were major factors in Sandy’s intensity.

As I have stated before the lack of willingness in American politics has been a major roadblock to getting comprehensive global emissions agreements. Sandy was a real shock to the system, a major storm event by any standards but even more surprising in its northerly latitude and direction of movement. While on a scientific level there is not yet a conclusive link between climate change and ‘Superstorm Sandy’ it, at the very least, demonstrates the scale of storm we may soon have to deal with if climate continues to change. Sandy’s ‘silver lining’ will be if this demonstration pushes politicians and the public in general into action.

 Of course this may not happen. While the fact that climate change is being talked about in relation to Sandy is a positive step, the ability of governments and voters both to ignore the past when it comes to natural disasters has to be reckoned with. In the post-Katrina world of 2005 there were some who tried to use the hurricane as a catalyst to push new environmental policy. On paper the destruction of huge areas of a low lying coastal city, causing nearly 2,000 fatalities and over $100 billion of damage should at least have started a debate into whether rising sea levels and warming sea temperatures will make such events more common and what we should be doing to stop this. Seven years later another coastal city has suffered a similar fate with no such discussion having taken place. We must hope that this time the opposite happens and with America talking about climate change the rest of the world may follow suit.