Category Archives: Climate Change

Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change: Is There a Connection?


As Hurricane Sandy approaches, I thought it would be fitting to discuss the various views about the relationship between the impending natural disaster and climate change. A range of opinions and comments about Hurricane Sandy coming from journalists, scientists, bloggers, and citizens alike continue to flood social media outlets with content in the form of Tweets, online news articles and reports, posts on Facebook, blog posts, YouTube videos, photos on Instagram, check-ins on Foursquare, and more.

An article on Storify by expresses one view about this issue by making an analogy that compares Hurricane Sandy and climate change to baseball and steroid use:

From Scientist, Dr. Gerald Meehl:

Think of it like this Dr. Meehl said: “Barry Bonds had a certain average level of home run production in his baseball career before he started allegedly taking steroids. Once he started taking performance enhancers, his home run production increased, and he set the single season record for home runs in 2001. Now he holds the all-time record for the most home runs. If we watched Bonds hit any one of these home runs, would we be able to say that it was directly caused by his steroid use? “No, that’s impossible. But the odds of him hitting one are much higher; his base state has changed.”

So climate change has caused a similar shift of the odds in the atmosphere that will cause more extreme events to occur than if no such alteration existed. But all of this isn’t to say that extreme events occur only because of climate change. Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme events, not their presence in the first place.”

In “Social Media and the Environment Online,” Robert Cox writes, “One of the most interesting uses of social media in recent years has been the ability of ordinary citizens to document, report, or even expose conditions on the ground […] Citizens, researchers, and environmental groups are using mobile apps, digital cameras, smartphones, iPads, and online registries to document their observations of the natural world or report environmental problems to others” (186). I have included a couple of posts about Hurricane Sandy in the following:


Since Web 2.0 allows users to be “environmental eyewitnesses,” who have the ability to report and document news online, the way in which we receive information is shifting away “from a one-way, elite news media to a participatory model of content generation and sharing” (Cox 182). For decades of living in a consumerist culture, in which we sit in front of our televisions and listen to the radio in our cars on our daily commute, we have looked to mainstream media to broadcast the news to us. This caused many of us to be passive receivers of information. To, everything has changed. We are no longer solely members of an audience that takes in information given to us by those in power. Cox explains, “As a result of the ability of social media to document and easily share with wider outlets, more and more citizens, activists, students, and researchers are expanding our awareness of changes in the world that are often out of sight of the mainstream media or environmental officials. Such uses of media broaden our scientific understanding and also enable ordinary citizens to bear witness to environmental dangers in their communities” (187).

Those who would not have normally had their voices heard in the past can now share their views with others online. This sets the stage for pubic criticism of politicians and other powerful figures. Cox states, “With Facebook, , and other social media, the reach of public scrutiny and criticism has accelerated dramatically. This scrutiny has shamed environmental villains, criticized inept officials, and held accountable corporations, governments, and illegal operators for everything from air pollution to destruction of rainforests” (187). In the screenshot of tweets above, two of the five tweets direct criticism towards politicians in relation to climate change. In one tweet, a columnist on her personal account makes a remark about the failure to address climate change in the last presidential debate. In the other tweet, EcoWatch, “an online news service that supports the work of more than 1,000 grassroots environmental organizations and activists worldwide,” tells users to spread the word by retweeting if they believe that politicians should consider prioritizing climate change and offers a link to an article on their site.

Much of the content that environmental organizations, similar to EcoWatch, would like to disperse is largely found on their webpage. Unless this content gets widely disseminated through email, tweeting, or other forms of broadcast, then it is difficult for people who do not specifically seek out this information to see it. Cox brings up the challenges for social media advocacy, “It appears to be important, therefore, for a major news event to be present for the optimal effect of some social media campaigns, for example, a natural disaster, nuclear plant accident, or an oil spill. In other words, if the subject of the tweets is not on the front page, it can be difficult to get mass engagement with social media alone” (197). Whether or not climate change directly links up to the cause of Hurricane Sandy is still being determined and is still a much debated over topic. However, Hurricane Sandy has unquestionably brought to the forefront the disturbing absence of discussion about climate change in this year’s presidential election season. Therefore, while tweeting and other forms of social media have shown to be a terrific tool in highlighting the issue of climate change during Hurricane Sandy, will politicians and citizens alike start to care more about climate change once the storm passes? I certainly hope so.




Today, only a very small amount of water on Earth is potable. Almost three-fourths of the fresh water available on our planet gets used up in agriculture. In “101 Reasons Why I’m a Vegetarian,” Pamela Rice writes, “Because of increasing meat consumption, global water demand is forecast to go up by 40 percent by 2030. It is important to realize that half of all the world’s cultivated grain is fed to livestock. So, when people hear the word ‘agriculture,’ they largely need to think animal agriculture. Production inputs for a single hamburger amount to 634 gallons of water, 25 times that needed for the equivalent in wheat” (Rice 2). When viewing these facts all together, it is apparent that we have a problem on our hands. However, it isn’t as simple as stating a few disadvantages to the way agriculture production system is run today, and then moving on to trying to find alternative strategies to the current method that would serve as potential solutions to the problem at hand. Due to the largely invisible status of this issue in mainstream media, many people are not fully aware of the problem.

In “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning,” Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber state, “one of the most intractable problems is that of defining problems (of knowing what distinguishes an observed condition from a desired condition) and of locating problems (finding where in the complex casual networks the trouble really lies)” (159). Defining a ‘wicked’ problem, such as intensive agriculture, is not an easy task. It does not work in the same manner as mathematical problem solving in which a problem is given and a solution is found through carrying out the steps necessary to gain a definitive solution. In order to deal with wicked problems, we must realize how interrelated all of these problems are. For example, not only does industrial agriculture (including both crop and livestock production) expend the bulk of potable water on the earth, but it also engenders land degradation and climate change. Furthermore, there are different levels of a wicked problem. Land degradation and climate change are higher, and therefore, more general problems. A few problems that fit within these two broader problems include forests turning into eroded wasteland, arable land turning into desert, and greenhouse gases that are emitted during livestock production, which have even smaller, more concentrated problems within them as well. This could keep going on and on in many different directions up to the most minute details.

Additionally, it is essential to have “knowledge of all conceivable solutions” so as to be able to effectively “anticipate all questions”  (160). Along with this, we also must take into account the rarity of the majority of people agreeing on the image of a problem and coming up with a concrete model of planning towards a targeted resolution. Rittel and Weber point out, “diverse values are held by different groups of individuals—that what satisfies one may be abhorrent to another, that what comprises problem-solution for one is problem-generation for another. Under such circumstances, and in the absence of an overriding social theory or an overriding social ethic, there is no gainsaying which group is right and which should have its ends served” (169). Our pluralistic society makes way for a constant stream of opposing views to butt heads with each other. There is no easy way to solve a wicked problem whether it be social and/or environmental.