Resilient Storylines on Drought and Climate
The dominant framing of the water/drought issue in California is quite similar to that of the emerging climate change/developing world meme.
In California, drought is simplistically blamed for the state’s water woes and economic plight of farmers. Similarly, venerable authorities claim that climate change is responsible for 300,000 annual deaths and much misery in developing countries.
Neither storyline is accurate. Critical, countervailing narratives by reputable scholars are offered but largely ignored–not because they are wrong but because they don’t fit the dominant frame.
So in this sense, I’d say that Peter Gleick is to California’s supposed water/drought/misery connection as Roger Pielke Jr. is to the supposed climate change/disaster connection. Both have marshalled evidence and made arguments that challenge the respective storylines.
No matter. The dominant, false storylines drive the debate in the media and in policy and political circles. Go figure.
Hat tip for Gleick: Noah Buhayar at Environment Capital
You make this strained comparison between Gleick and RP Jr. after having had the gall to call *me* a good soldier for Romm? Sheesh. RP Jr. can only dream of having Gleick’s credibility and impact.
“In California, drought is simplistically blamed for the state’s water woes and economic plight of farmers.”
Huh? Of course there’s a simple (and true) connection between drought and water woes in the sense that if we had a lot more rain there wouldn’t be any such woes. It’s also true for the economic plight of farmers, although other factors are involved with that. The complexity sets in when one tries to contemplate solutions that don’t involve assuming much more rain over the long term.