18/09/2017

The US, Climate Change And The Farmers Of Nepal

Al JazeeraGregory Reck* | Dinesh Paudel*

As climate change makes their lives increasingly precarious, Nepalis reflect on the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord.
Significant changes in weather patterns are affecting farming communities across Nepal [Gregory Reck/Al Jazeera]
Saipu, Nepal - Three weeks after US President Donald Trump announced that "as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the… Paris Accord," Shiva, a subsistence farmer in the Nepali village of Saipu, says: "It's like God is mad and has disappeared and something evil is taking over the sky."
"Look at my corn. It's thirsty, but there is no water any more." He pauses and then quietly adds, "climate change. The people who are causing this are killing us."
Trump promised to end the "draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country" because "we don't want other countries laughing at us any more". But Shiva and his fellow farmers aren't laughing as they speak about how climate change is threatening them all.
We were in Saipu to research the politics of reconstruction in post-earthquake Nepal. More than 80 percent of the structures in Saipu were rendered uninhabitable by the earthquakes of April and May 2015. Only about 20 percent have been repaired or rebuilt with the aid of government grants and loans that have burdened many with excessive debt.

'The whole cycle of life is changing'
Despite the suffering that they have endured for more than two years, Shiva and the other subsistence farmers who have gathered know that climate change is the real danger.
"The earthquakes destroyed our homes, school and health clinic, but those we will eventually rebuild," a man named Gopal interjects. "But erratic weather with little rain is already bringing the final disaster."


Scientists link Hurricane Harvey to climate change

Anguished expressions settle on their faces as the conversation escalates. "It rained heavily in March when we needed dry weather to plant corn," a woman named Kalpana adds.
"And then it was dry in April and May when planted corn needed water. It's never been this way. The corn is small. We should be harvesting it now and getting ready to plant rice, but everything is running behind. The whole cycle of life is changing."
She looks up at the cloudless sky, which should be dark and full of life-giving rain at the beginning of the monsoon season. She knows that the rhythm of subsistence farming that has evolved over the centuries is not some arbitrary human choice, but is dependent upon reasonably predictable natural cycles.
Her observations about climate change are not made causally. They are the result of traditional knowledge of a topic that has always been a matter of survival.
Farmer after farmer tells the same story: it rains when it's supposed to be dry, and it's dry when it's supposed to rain; rotating crops of corn, millet, rice and vegetables requires weather predictability which is no more; mountain streams that make agriculture possible on the steep slopes and which provide drinking water are drying up; days are warmer, making mosquitoes flourish and goats and cattle sick.

Climate change: A catastrophic reality
In this village with no electricity, where the basic fuel is wood, and there are no vehicles aside from a couple of tractors and four-wheel drives to ferry people and supplies up and down the landslide-prone road, residents know they contribute nothing to the factors creating climate change and, yet, are on the receiving end of its consequences.
According to the World Bank, Nepal's entire CO2 output in 2013 was only 0.2 of a metric tonne. Before 1995, it was less than 0.1 of a metric tonne per year. Despite Trump's claim that the United States is the world's leader in environmental policy, the World Bank says that in 2013 the US contributed 16.4 metric tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere.
According to Statista, a website that compiles statistics on a variety of topics, in 2016 the US produced 15.99 percent of global CO2 emissions, second only to China.
The Berkeley Energy and Resource Collaborative in 2014 concluded that the US had contributed more than 20 percent of all global warming since pre-industrial times.
The subsistence farmers of Nepal, like billions of vulnerable people across the globe, are the victims of the excesses of a bloated global economy that fattens the few at the expense of the many. For these people, climate change is not some abstract, debatable idea that a country like the US can wish out of existence. For them, it is a catastrophic reality.

Floods in the US, floods in South Asia
The August 2017 floods in Nepal, India and Bangladesh are a case in point. While the US - and much of the global - news media focused on the floods in Houston, Texas, the human cost of the flooding in South Asia was largely overlooked.
Although the calculation of the damage is still mounting, at least 200 people died as a result of the floods in Nepal, and 1.7 million have been severely affected, as 65,000 homes were damaged or destroyed.
As many as 40 million people have been directly impacted across Nepal, India and Bangladesh. While monsoon rains are part of the normal climatic cycle in the region, there is little doubt that the ferocity of the rain increased dramatically as a result of climate change.
The farmers of Saipu do what they can. They protect their forests with the razor-thin hope that this might mitigate the fury of climate change. They conserve as much water as possible hoping that the rain will fall normally once again. They plant seeds hoping that, against all the odds, the crops will produce enough to sustain them. But they know that it is the decisions made in distant places that truly determine their fate.
Shiva finally exhibits the satirical humour for which Nepali farmers are famous. "Now that the US has decided not to cooperate in stopping climate change," he smiles, alluding to Trump's announcement, "they have only two choices: reverse the decision and stop putting pollution into the sky, or move everything and everybody from Nepal to the US."
Everyone around him laughs. For a moment, the anger and frustration they feel disappear. But then the laughter fades, and a momentary quiet takes over.
We recall the statement US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt made at the Paris Accord withdrawal ceremony: "We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship."
We wonder whether Pruitt could bring himself to tell these Nepali farmers that.
Then an elderly man named Devi, who has so far remained silent, speaks softly. "I used to think the USA was smart, but now I know that they are just selfish and irresponsible," he says.
Everyone nods in agreement.

*Gregory Reck is a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Appalachian State University in the US.
*Dinesh Paudel is an assistant professor in the Department of Sustainable Development at Appalachian State University.

Links

Murdoch-Owned Media’s Radical Climate Denial In The Face Of Disaster

Fairness And Accuracy In ReportingAdam Johnson*

Wall Street Journal's glib snark over Harvey completes its Fox News-ification
Rupert Murdoch-owned news outlets including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal included climate change denial in its coverage of hurricanes Irma and Harvey—even mocking the view pushed by climate scientists that climate change has added to the severity of storms. (Photo: FAIR.org/screen capture)


A recent survey by progressive watchdog Public Citizen  (9/12/17) on the media’s coverage of hurricanes Harvey and Irma confirms what’s long been known: Corporate media are indifferent to the causal relationship between climate change and extreme weather, and by far the worst offenders are the Rupert Murdoch–owned Fox News, Wall Street Journal and New York Post.
The survey covered 18 outlets hurricane coverage for the week of August 25–September 1: ten major newspapers, three weekly news magazines, and ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox News. Out of 2,000 media items, there were only 136 mentions of climate change, many denialist in content.
Fox‘s Tucker Carlson (8/31/17) to The Hill‘s Joe Concha: “Science is complicated. You know what’s not complicated? Moral preening.”
Outlets owned by Murdoch’s umbrella corporations, News Corp and 21st Century Fox, clearly led the denialist camp. These firms constitute the core propaganda machine of the right in the English-speaking world, with the highest-rated cable news network (Fox News) and the first and sixth biggest-circulation newspapers (Wall Street Journal, New York Post) in the United States. As Public Citizen’s media survey reveals, they go beyond indifference to advocate outright denialism.
The  Journal had three op-eds and Fox News had two segments that denied—and laughingly mocked—any connection between hurricane intensity and climate change, the survey found:
  • Holman W. Jenkins, Jr: “First Houston’s Resilience, Then Washington’s Boondoggle” (Wall Street Journal, 8/29/31)
  • Roger Pielke Jr: “The Hurricane Lull Couldn’t Last” (Wall Street Journal, 8/31/17)
  • Editorial Board: “Texas, Thou Hast Sinned” (Wall Street Journal, 8/31/17)
  • Tucker Carlson Tonight (Fox News, 8/31/17)
  • The Five (Fox News, 8/25/17)
Other media did better, but some not much more so. ABC News and NBC News didn’t mention climate change at all in the context of Hurricane Harvey or Irma. Other outlets, such as USA Today (8/30/17, 8/30/17), used a “both sides” framing to provide a platform for denialists, but the paper’s editorial ultimately concluded climate change “juiced Hurricane Harvey.”
Public Citizen’s report (9/8/17)
Public Citizen’s survey found that climate coverage in the context of Harvey and Irma was concentrated in four outlets—the Washington Post, Houston Chronicle, New York Times and CNN, which together produced 72 percent of the pieces that mentioned climate change. CNN led the way with 30 mentions of climate change, only two of which were denialist in nature: interviews with Rep. Pete Olson (R.–Texas) and Bill Read, the former director of the National Hurricane Center. The Post had 23, the Chronicle had 22 and the Times had 18. The remaining 28 percent were peppered across 10 sources.
The survey highlighted what it considered the “seven aspects” of climate change coverage:
  • Clearly connected climate change to Hurricane Harvey (or to events like it)
  • Framed questions regarding the role of climate change as whether it contributes to or intensifies the damage from events like Harvey rather than whether it “causes” them
  • Discussed relevant clearly connected climate change to Hurricane Harvey (or to events like it);
  • Noted ways to adapt to climate change (for example with better disaster preparedness or zoning or building policies)
  • Noted ways to mitigate climate change (for example by reducing greenhouse gas pollution and switching to renewable sources of energy)
  • Noted specific relevant policies or actions that have been or could be taken at the local or state level; and
  • Noted specific relevant policies or actions that have been or could be taken at the federal level.
Only five outlets hit all aspects. Murdoch brands New York Post and Wall Street Journal went 0 for 7 and 1 for 7, respectively, and Fox News went 4 for 7—mentioning these aspects, but doing so in a derisive or dismissive manner.
In reality, the problem is not Texas but Texaco.
As consensus emerges not just around the science of climate change, but also its amplifying effects on extreme weather events, Murdoch’s media empire—and the Republican Party that its talking points inform—will remain the last holdout. Even the nominally respectable Wall Street Journal, bought by Murdoch ten years ago, publishes snarky and glib editorials on the topic (8/31/17):
Who says progressives don’t believe in religion? They may not believe in Jehovah or Jesus, but they certainly believe in Old Testament-style wrath against sinners. Real Noah and the Ark stuff. Witness the emerging theme on the media left that Texas, and especially Houston, are at fault for the devastation of Hurricane Harvey.
LOL funny stuff, right? A city underwater and extreme weather amplified by catastrophic climate change is all one big joke. A recent Guardian (9/10/17) report documented how corrupting Murdoch’s hand has been with the establishment paper, with dozens of writers quitting after being pressured to “normalize” Trump. Nevertheless, the Journal continues to ignore basic science to remain lockstep with their party and president, becoming more tabloid in tone and more craven in purpose.

*Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org.

Links

British Press Watchdog Says Climate Change Article Was Faulty

New York Times

A self-policing group within the British news industry has forced the tabloid The Mail on Sunday to acknowledge that an article it published asserting that climate researchers in the United States had manipulated data was inaccurate and misleading.
A statement saying the news organization “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article” was posted on The Mail on Sunday’s website early Sunday and was to appear in the print edition as well.
Publication of the statement was required after the self-regulating group, the Independent Press Standards Organization, ruled in favor of a complaint that the article, which was published on Feb. 5, had misrepresented the comments of a former scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about a 2015 climate change paper by a leading NOAA climate researcher, Thomas R. Karl, and others.






John J. Bates, a retired government scientist, at his home in Arden, N.C. His criticism of a former boss resulted in a furor among climate change deniers. Credit Chris Bott 
The Mail on Sunday, the statement said, also failed to correct “significantly misleading statements” in the article, which was written by David Rose and based on the claims of the former NOAA scientist, John J. Bates. The press standards group, known as IPSO, was expected to publish the full text of its ruling on its website.
The man who brought the complaint against The Mail on Sunday, Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said that he had immediate concerns about the article when he read it.
“It was fairly obvious right from the start it was bound to be suspicious because David Rose has a long history of promoting climate change denial,” Mr. Ward said.
“It was grossly overblown,” Mr. Ward added, “and that was clearly what he was trying to do.”
Efforts to reach Mr. Rose were not successful. John Wellington, managing editor of The Mail on Sunday, confirmed in an email that the news organization was going to post what he referred to as an adjudication.
Mr. Rose’s article was published with the print headline, “EXPOSED: How world leaders were duped over global warming,” and a similar headline online. It detailed assertions by Dr. Bates about temperature data that had been used in the 2015 paper, which provided evidence against the idea that global warming had slowed in the first decade of this century.
In The Mail on Sunday’s article, Mr. Rose described Dr. Bates as a “high-level whistle-blower” and said Dr. Bates had told him that NOAA had “breached its own rules on scientific integrity” by using what was described as “unverified” data for the study. The article also asserted that the study was rushed into print in June 2015 to have “maximum possible impact on world leaders” at the Paris climate talks later that year.
Most of the article’s assertions were rejected by scientists in the days after it was published. Former colleagues of Dr. Bates, who at one time was in charge of archiving data at the National Centers for Environmental Information, where Mr. Karl served as director, ascribed Dr. Bates’s assertions to lingering resentment over a demotion.
Dr. Bates himself, in an interview after the Mail article was published, said he had not intended to accuse Mr. Karl of manipulating data.
But the article made Dr. Bates into something of a hero in the community of climate change denialists and others who claim that some climate scientists are politicizing the subject.
Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, a Republican who heads the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, tweeted at the time that “NOAA sr officials played fast & loose w/data in order 2 meet politically predetermined conclusion on climate change.”
Mr. Smith, who previously had accused the Obama administration of having a “suspect climate agenda,” also wrote to NOAA seeking more information on Mr. Karl’s study, which he said raised questions “as to whether the science at NOAA is objective and free from political interference.”
An email request for comment from a spokeswoman for Mr. Smith’s committee was not returned.
Mr. Ward of the Grantham Institute also filed a complaint about an opinion piece in The Times of London on Dr. Bates’s claims. That complaint was dismissed by IPSO in July.
Mr. Ward said he thought his complaint against The Mail was upheld because it was not about whether Dr. Bates’s claims were true, but about whether the article had accurately reflected his views.
“In this case the newspaper article was considered to have gone well beyond those views,” Mr. Ward said.
IPSO was established in 2014 after a phone-hacking scandal rocked the British news industry and revealed deficiencies in the previous system for self-policing. The Mail on Sunday and other news organizations are part of the effort, but some news organizations, including The Guardian and the Financial Times, are not involved.
Mr. Ward said The Mail on Sunday had a long history of publishing articles that were inaccurate and misleading about climate change.
“We’re hopeful that following this the editor will be somewhat more skeptical about stories that Mr. Rose brings to them,” he said.

Links