Stop saying global warming caused Ebola!

Several media outlets jumped the gun in suggesting that climate change was a key factor in the current outbreak

Topics: Climate Change, IPCC, climate change denialism, ebola, Ebola outbreak, Extreme weather, infectious disease, ,

Stop saying global warming caused Ebola!Scanning electron microscopic image of Ebola virions (Credit: Public Library of Science)

Climate change is not causing West Africa’s Ebola outbreak. It sounds obvious, when you say it like that. And yet Emily Atkin of ThinkProgress, a news site usually dedicated to showing how climate change is impacting things, nonetheless found it necessary to call out some overzealous reporting on the matter. Two stories that ran last week, under the guise of asking whether climate change might have something to do with summer’s most talked about disease, end up suggesting that it’s a primary cause.

“According to three veteran epidemiologists who study how climate impacts disease spread, there is currently no scientific evidence that suggests a climate link to the current Ebola outbreak,” Atkin wrote last Friday. ”Prematurely reporting on this link is harmful, they say, because it undermines good research that is being done on the growing link between global warming and other types of infectious diseases, such as malaria and cholera.”

My first thought, weirdly enough, was, “Oh, that was brave of her.” Perhaps it’s because climate deniers, in their quest to debunk everything ever said about man-made global warming (starting, of course, with the fact that it’s happening and that it’s caused by human activity), are constantly accusing the media of doing this very thing: pushing a climate connection where it doesn’t exist. In fact, several denier-oriented sites I occasionally monitor (but prefer not to link to) had anticipated this one. (They don’t deserve bragging rights for doing so, however, because they’re also quick to discount the good, plentiful and peer-reviewed research linking climate change to a host of other diseases and extreme weather events.)



Atkin calls out two pieces in particular: one in Newsweek, and another from CNBC. Both appear to have grabbed a pitch from the same nonprofit, EcoHealth Alliance, about how West Africa’s Ebola outbreak can be tied to climate change. The first is mostly a bait-and-switch. It name-drops the two big buzzwords, “Ebola and climate change,” and then asks, “Are Humans Responsible for the Severity of the Current Outbreak?” But the article itself mostly focuses on that second question. It discusses the way the changing climate has been linked to other infectious diseases, like malaria, but admits it’s difficult to draw a definitive connection in this case. CNBC is more aggressive, asking whether climate change is “key” to the outbreak and asserting, in its very first sentence, that climate change could make future Ebola outbreaks more frequent. It argues that changing weather patterns, by affecting the behavior of fruit bats, could be responsible for the severity of this outbreak. But as Jason Rohr, who studies disease ecology at the University of South Florida, explains to Atkin, local weather events are not the same thing as long-term climate trends, and the article “irresponsibly” conflates the two.

There’s good reason to believe that human activity, in general, is contributing to the current Ebola outbreak. The Newsweek article discusses how the expansion of agriculture and deforestation, along with travel and trade, could be playing a role — similar sentiments have been expressed in other media outlets, including Salon. When that happens, climate change usually merits a mention. As Annemarie Dooling wrote in her introduction to a community discussion, “The spread of Ebola has been linked to deforestation, the consumption of bush meat and population shifts to urban areas, all of which are consequences or causes of climate change.” As arguably the most harmful result of humanity’s impact on the planet, climate change is tied up with everything else. And once you’re trained to look for it, it’s hard not to see it everywhere.

But it’s a lot trickier to point fingers directly. Forbes Tompkins, a meteorologist and research analyst with the World Resources Institute, explains that even when we know that climate change is linked to an extreme weather event, or the spread of an infectious disease, we can only say that it made it more likely — not that it actually caused it. And the chain of events can be tenuous. Tompkins points, as an example, to the 2011 Texas drought. According to several peer-reviewed studies, a heat wave that occurred during the drought was made 20 times more likely to occur by climate change; that heat wave then amplified the severity of the drought. Instead of a clear case of cause and effect, it was more of what he described as a “spider web-oriented ripple effect.” And even that is more than sometimes turns out to be happening: One major report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, looking back on 12 extreme weather events that occurred in 2012, found evidence that climate change played a role in about half of them.

On the flip side, it’s perfectly plausible that human activity can contribute to a major event without climate change ever entering the equation. For this, Tompkins gives the example of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, which occurred before the era of man-made warming. Drought, in this case, was amplified by irresponsible land use. Human activity and climate change, while intricately related, are not always one and the same.

As the current scientific understanding of climate change is that it is going to make extreme weather events worse — and, by extension, contribute to the spread of some infectious diseases — it’s not unreasonable for the media to want to bring it up. For one thing, it’s a way to make a complicated, even boring topic so much more exciting. Which would you rather read about: climate models (yawn), or SUPERSTORMS and BRAIN-EATING AMOEBAS!? It’s also, I’d argue, a really important and effective tool for raising the public’s consciousness of the ways that climate change is already affecting us now and, barring significant action, will bring a whole other world of hurt in the future. But there are ways to do this while still being accurate: We can’t, again, say that climate change caused any one event. We can suggest that climate change could be playing a role in a certain event (“climate change still influences Ebola, it influences everything,” one expert told Atkin), or explain that it will make such events more likely in the future, but our current level of scientific understanding doesn’t allow us to attribute anything to climate change until after the fact, once scientists have had time to conduct comprehensive research.

So yes, it’s very easy to get ahead of ourselves, as was the case with Ebola. While it’s valid to speculate about the way climate change could be contributing in this outbreak, Tompkins explains, it’s way too soon to know where it falls on the list of other contributing factors. It’s also easy to understand why the experts interviewed by Atkin sounded so annoyed. In the popular imagination, climate change has taken on a life of its own, as a narrative that can, at its most extreme, explain either everything or nothing about our current world. But for scientists, it’s about just that: science. And just as some people’s fierce personal desire for it not to be happening can undermine our understanding of that science, so too can the impulse to cry climate prematurely. “Because the whole climate change debate has been so controversial, we’ve got to be doing solid science in that area,” Andrew P. Dobson, an ecology and evolutionary biology professor at Princeton University, told Atkin. “If people start saying inflammatory things, it just messes up the whole funding arena for everybody else.”

Lindsay Abrams

Lindsay Abrams is a staff writer at Salon, reporting on all things sustainable. Follow her on Twitter @readingirl, email labrams@salon.com.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

Loading Comments...