Unnatural Disasters Edition

Issue #8: Voting has already begun in many states 

In this edition

• The politics of climate change-driven extreme weather 

• Green Marshall Plans in the U.S. and China

• Storm disinfo run amok

The big picture

A pair of deadly super storms, made significantly worse by U.S. carbon pollution, became a key election issue this month (Bloomberg), though both candidates’ responses fell short. Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris both visited storm-ravaged communities, first in North Carolina, after Helene hit on September 26, killing over 200 people. 

Trump flew to the disaster zone first and criticized Harris for not doing the same, fanning lies and false accusations about FEMA aid and other disinformation (CNN) which quickly amplified across social and right-wing media. Major right-wing figures started questioning if Democrats were “controlling the weather.” Such disinformation has hampered recovery efforts (Politico) to the degree that recovery workers were forced to retreat due to reports of armed militias in North Carolina (Washington Post). FEMA even set up its own FAQ to combat disinformation. 

Also in North Carolina, Harris focused her comments on the pain of destruction in the storm and promised to help rebuild. She didn’t exactly mention climate change however, and Amy Westervelt at Drilled thinks that might be alright because she is talking about clean air and water and disaster response in a way that may resonate with more people.

President Joe Biden, who also visited Asheville, North Carolina and other hard-hit areas, had the strongest statement linking climate change to the deadly storms: “Storms are getting stronger and stronger,” he said at a briefing in Raleigh (AP). “Nobody can deny the impact of the climate crisis any more. At least I hope they don’t. They must be brain-dead if they do.”

Politico looked specifically at hard-hit conservative districts: “Helene has pushed this contest into novel territory: It’s the first catastrophic event in U.S. history to hit two critical swing states within six weeks of a presidential election, based on a POLITICO’s E&E News analysis of data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

It is unclear if the storm will have any impact on voting turnout, although North Carolina has made critical changes for the 25 affected counties. Georgia officials have not announced any changes, saying most polling stations and equipment escaped serious damage.

Also at stake as voters go to the polls: insurance, according to a New York Times story on disaster politics in North Carolina.

Still, it appears that neither Trump nor Harris has made the strong connection between these two unnatural disasters and climate change, though scientists and major media outlets have been quick to show the link: “Hurricane Milton walloped Florida with at least 20 percent more rain and 10 percent stronger winds than a similarly rare storm would have done in a world that humans hadn’t warmed by burning fossil fuels,” The New York Times stated, citing studies from World Weather Attribution and Imperial College.

Local reporters — and local politicians in North Carolina — also asserted the strong extreme weather-climate change connection (NC Newsline): 

The public as well — including in recently storm ravaged communities — is making the connection to climate change (Bloomberg): 

Recall during the first Trump administration that Trump caused panic in Alabama when he insisted that Hurricane Dorian was going to hit the state and then used a weather chart altered with a black Sharpie pen to double down on the false claim. Trump was also criticized for callously tossing out paper towels to survivors after Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico. 

Project 2025, regarded as an agenda for a second Trump presidency, suggests cutting disaster funding (E&E News), getting rid of the National Weather Service, reducing FEMA’s mandate (it mentions FEMA almost 30 times) and, of course, supporting oil and gas companies.

What’s really happening across the U.S. and how is climate change shaping this critical election? These are the questions this newsletter will ask, fortnightly, through the election in November and beyond. So please subscribe and forward this email along if you find it useful.

Several recent stories have looked at the consequences of international climate cooperation should Trump win a second term. S&P Global looked at the cost and benefit of the U.S. staying in or leaving the Paris Agreement. Either way, according to one climate expert: “the Europeans will double down on climate, states will double down on climate… What we observed last time is that a lot of other folks are willing to step into the breach, and this time it will happen faster.”

U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granhold told the Financial Times that retreating from U.S. climate policy would be like “stabbing ourselves.” 

“Why would we want to give China the advantage again?” Granholm said. “That just seems like we would be not just unilaterally disarming, we would be stabbing ourselves because it would be so foolish… It would definitely be undermining America’s energy independence.”

We’d love to see a serious discussion on the roles of the U.S. and China in building the stuff of the green industrial transition and also funding it across the Global South. The Polycrisis comparison of the latest “Green Marshall Plan” thinking on both superpowers is a good starting point: “Both China and the US are, of course, doing what serves their immediate economic and political needs. Marshall Plans continue to be a mirage; the marriage of decarbonization and development requires far more internationalism than political coalitions in either great power are currently willing or able to underwrite.”

Adam Tooze’s Chartbook takes a stab at why the Trump campaign has no interest in the bigger hegemonic goals of Marshall Plan thinking, with a deep dive into Trump’s middling finances: “The sobering fact is that the office of the Presidency in the United States, the world’s richest country, and the leadership of one of its two leading parties, the GOP, has been put in the service of a medium-sized clan enterprise.”

Meanwhile, even Big Oil is now pleading with Trump not to dismantle the Inflation Reduction Act (Wall Street Journal), though most of their interest is in tax credits for carbon capture and hydrogen.

Information integrity (disinfo)

The hurricanes that hit the Southeast in recent weeks inspired a deluge of political disinformation, complicating the disaster response, including the outrageous fabrication that the government was manipulating the path of the storm (Heatmap).

This did spur a refreshing meme war showing where the blame for these super storms actually lies.

But the Trump campaign also doubled down on hurricane disinformation, spreading lies about FEMA and bringing anti-immigrant hate into campaigning (E&E News). See also Harris’ response to a question on disaster response during the Univision town hall meeting last week, arguing to take politics out of the response.

Voters’ climate game (polling) 

Politico surveyed Republican members of Congress to ask about the connection between super storms and climate change and found that none attribute the strengths of storms to climate change. “If we literally go to zero fossil fuels in the United States and we’re all riding bicycles, do you know how much that will actually cool the planet and by when?” asked Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, a South Florida Republican.

“We urgently have to reduce climate pollution, the pollution that is warming the seas,” Florida Rep. Kathy Castor told NPR, in contrast. 

Former GOP Rep. Carlos Curbelo, also from Florida, said to Politico, “I can tell you for sure that many [Republicans] do so [acknowledge climate change] privately, that many of them understand and accept the science and know this is a challenge … but one thing is to do so quietly and another thing is to be a leader and to take some political risks for the sake of doing the right thing.”

Trailing thoughts

Question for you: As you watch American politics unfold this year, what is the climate issue that holds the highest stakes for you? Are you worried about extreme weather and our ability to rebound? Are you an EV or electric bus person? Are you worried about U.S. climate finance commitments? Are you just worried? Let us know! 

Why stakes? We are calling this newsletter Climate Stakes U.S. because the stakes are, indeed, too high. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen has urged reporters to consider the stakes of elections, and not just the odds of winning them, and we aim to do that for the climate. As the year develops, we will look for high stakes moments and show where they do — or where they should — overlap with American politics. 

GSCC is a global network of communications professionals in the field of climate and energy. The views expressed in quotes in this newsletter are those of the people making the comments and not necessarily those of GSCC, and they are presented as a service in the interest of informing the public. GSCC does not endorse candidates.

This edition was written by Nate.