Last week a catastrophic flood swept through Central Texas, killing at least 50 people, including at least two dozen girls at a Christian summer camp located near the Guadalupe River. The water reportedly rose 25 feet in 40 minutes, something of almost Biblical proportions.
In similar horrifying events, 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina for example, conservative religious voices framed disasters as divine punishment for the sins of modern society. These interpretations, often shared in churches, social media posts, and talk radio segments, portray tragedies like these as acts of God triggered by moral decay: homosexuality, abortion, secularism, or a failure to adhere to traditional values.
This time politicians blamed these deaths on the National Weather Service and NOAA and its antiquated warning system. Part of that is true. And it's mind-boggling that conservative politicians like Homeland Security Chief Christy Noem, who make these assertions, are those who have worked so hard to shortchange federal agencies like this.
The biggest sin in this case, though, is the refusal by those in power, to confront the mounting crisis of human-caused climate change. What we are witnessing in Texas, and in countless other climate disasters around the globe. It is the direct and measurable result of a planet warming due to greenhouse gas emissions and the systems that sustain them.
Scientific evidence has been clear for decades. As the Earth’s atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture, leading to heavier and more intense rainfall events. A warmer climate also disrupts traditional weather patterns, increasing the likelihood of sudden and extreme downpours. The National Climate Assessment and peer-reviewed studies in journals like Nature Climate Change and Geophysical Research Letters confirm the link between climate change and flash flooding, especially in the U.S. South and Midwest. In Texas specifically, the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events have risen markedly over the past few decades, driven in large part by human activity.
In the case of this month’s flood, nearly a foot of rain fell in just a few hours over the Guadalupe River basin. The river surged more than 26 feet in 45 minutes, submerging campsites, RV parks, and a Christian girls’ summer camp. This level of devastation is not random. It is part of a trend—a predictable, deadly trend that scientists have warned us about repeatedly.
And yet, the political response to climate change, especially among many conservative lawmakers and right-wing institutions, has been one of denial, deflection, and delay. Texas remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels, both economically and politically. Industry-backed campaigns have spread climate misinformation for years, weakening public understanding and blocking meaningful policy reforms. Some Texas leaders continue to cast doubt on climate science even as their constituents drown in record-breaking floods and fry in record-breaking heat.
But if we are to talk about sin, we should do so honestly. The sin is in the silence and inaction. The sin is in ignoring the suffering of the vulnerable—children at summer camps, workers without flood insurance, renters with no way to evacuate—while protecting the profits of polluters. The sin is in cutting funding for emergency management and scientific research while quoting scripture to justify the status quo.
True moral clarity lies in demanding justice from systems that degrade the planet and sacrifice human life for political gain. Repentance, in this sense, means changing course: ending fossil fuel subsidies, embracing climate adaptation, strengthening infrastructure, and respecting the knowledge of scientists and Indigenous communities.
Texas is drowning not because of God's wrath but because of human arrogance. To call it anything else is not only dishonest—it is a grave disservice to the dead, the missing, and the millions still at risk.
Sources
-
US Global Change Research Program. Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II (2018). https://nca2018.globalchange.gov
-
Prein, A. F., Rasmussen, R. M., Ikeda, K., et al. "Increased rainfall volume from future convective storms in the US." Nature Climate Change, 7, 880–884 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0007-7
-
Trenberth, K. E. "Changes in precipitation with climate change." Climate Research, 47(1–2), 123–138 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00953
-
Hoerling, M., Eischeid, J., Perlwitz, J., et al. "Explaining Extreme Events of 2013 from a Climate Perspective." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (2014). https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00021.1
-
Zhang, W., Villarini, G., Scoccimarro, E., & Vecchi, G. A. "Impacts of the Pacific Meridional Mode on U.S. Springtime Tornado Activity." Geophysical Research Letters, 43(3), 1096–1104 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067193
It's an ecocide, just like what happened in Rio Grande do Sul and Valencia. Climate change is 100% real, and it's mostly (if not completely as in almost 100%) human made. I dunno what's worse about climate change denial, if it's the ones who use religious/political arguments or the ones who use of "scientific" arguments for deny climate change, like, there are so many people from Earth sciences and Climate sciences (mainly from geosciences) who openly deny Climate change saying "but it has always happened" and/or "it's nothing like what happened millions of years ago". Yeah, it's even more dangerous than classical climate denial, because it kinda proves how science can be used as an ideology/doctrine, as well as how basically all facts/evidence (including scientific evidence) are cherry pickable.
ReplyDeleteAny names we should be naming?
DeleteIt's an ecocide as in totally preventable, besides this page appears when searching for "Texas Ecocide Floods" on Google. The floods themselves aren't the ecocide, but rather the way how they're preventable and what the state/federal Authorities could have done for prevent those disasters.
DeleteYou should make an article about Science-Backed Climate Change Denial, you can find it on a lot on websites like Quora and even on Discord servers too. They take cherry picking and ideology to a whole new level, to the point that literally all facts/evidence, including all scientific evidence, are cherry pickable. You should write about those, because those are the most dangerous ones. Because no matter how good your arguments and/or scientific evidence are, they'll just find a way to dismiss those arguments and/or to have a different interpretation of the evidence. I know it's very different from classical science denial, but I don't see anyone talking about it. It's like some Brazilian "science communicators" who claim to oppose all forms of "pseudoscience" while they openly say that pesticides aren't harmful and always minimize climate change, no wonder they say that science is political/ideological, kinda like Sven Ove Hansson saying that Marxism and Psychoanalysis are the same thing but saying that Marxism is somehow empirical, just like Victor Moberger calling all of continental philosophy "bullshit" while recognizing that even analytic philosophy, positivism, and most of science also falls into his definition of "bullshit", or like Jimo Borjigin trying to explain everything based on "Dopamine" (literally Dopaminoeugenics and Dopaminocentrism lol).
ReplyDeleteThat sounds interesting. Will have to check it out.
DeleteI think it would be interesting if you wrote about Evidence-Based Denial (as well as Evidence-Based Science Denial), where it's a whole different form of Denial from classical pseudosciences and classical forms of denial. An example would be those "experiments" for prove that Earth is flat, like that one of Laser under water in Finland, and that one in Brazil made by Dakila/Ratanaba folks.
DeleteI think that you should also write about Political-Driven/Ideology-Driven Science too, like what Elon Musk do, and what so many AI companies actually do, as well as how most of 4.0 Industry and 5.0 Industry in matters of Authoritarian/Totalitarian Capitalism. Another example would be Transhumanism/Posthumanism, as well as Cognitive Eugenics and Neuroeugenics.
ReplyDeleteI think you should write about the Central Texas Floods as an ecocide and compare it to other floods like in Rio Grande do Sul, Valencia etc. I think the 1st Amendment allows you to say so, as well as give evidence for why it's an ecocide, since so many Texans are recognizing it's indeed an ecocide, despite accountability is nearly impossible (if most impossible level) for reasons you already know, as well as Trump could get rid of the 1st Amendment if/when he needs to (or at least add so many restrictions to the 1st Amendment). You should look for the news about Texans asking for accountability for the floods and then apply the definition of ecocide to it.
ReplyDelete