Climate Change and Disaster in Montana
Published in the Los Angeles Times
"We're a disaster area," Alexis Bonogofsky told me, "and it's going to take a long time to get over it."
Bonogofsky and her partner, Mike Scott, are all over the news this week, telling the world about how Montana's Exxon Mobil pipeline spill has fouled their goat ranch and is threatening the health of their animals.
But my conversation with Bonogofsky was four full days before the pipeline began pouring oil into the Yellowstone River. And no, it's not that she's psychic; she was talking about this year's historic flooding.
"It's unbelievable," she said. "It's like nothing I've experienced in my lifetime. It destroyed houses; people died; crops didn't get in the fields…. We barely were able to get our hay crop in."
Everyone agrees that the two disasters — the flooding of the Yellowstone River and the oil spill in the riverbed — are connected. According to Exxon officials, the high and fast-moving river has four times its usual flow this year, which has hampered cleanup and prevented their workers from reaching the exact source of the spill. Also thanks to the flooding, the oiled water has breached the riverbanks, inundating farmland, endangering animals, killing crops and contaminating surface water. And the rush of water appears to be carrying the oil toward North Dakota.
Government and company officials have also speculated that the flooding may even have caused the spill in the first place. Recent testing showed the pipeline was buried five to eight feet under the riverbed, but officials suspect that raging water may have exposed the pipe, leaving it vulnerable to fast-moving debris.
So the flooding may have caused the pipeline spill. But here is the really uncomfortable question: Did the pipeline cause the flooding? Not this one particular pipeline, of course, but all the pipelines, and all the coal trains, and all the refineries and the power plants they supply? Was the flooding that has made the oil spill so much worse caused by the burning of oil and other fossil fuels? Put bluntly, do these dual disasters have the same root?
This is an unanswerable question, since no one weather event can be traced to climate change. Still, in Montana, it's hard to deny that global warming is happening. The state is home to Glacier National Park, which had 150 large glaciers in 1850 and now has just 25, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
And we do know that Montana's flooding was caused by record rainfall and by runoff from heavy snowfall. Though climate deniers (some of them funded by Exxon) love to point to freak snowstorms as "proof" that the planet isn't warming, the opposite is often true: In some places, the warmer the air, the more water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere and the more moisture comes down in the form of rain or snow.
As Scott put it to me, "We went from drought to rain forest in just a few months. The weather has just been bizarre."
Despite all this, Montana is in the midst of a fossil fuel frenzy. The state's governor may be shaking his fist at Exxon now, but he has championed virtually every fossil fuel project that has crossed his desk, from a vast new coal mine near the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, to new rail lines that would help ship Montana's coal to China, to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Alberta's tar sands to refineries along the Gulf Coast.
Bonogofsky and Scott are at the forefront of the fight against this carbon-centric vision of Montana's future. When they aren't growing food or taking care of their herd of goats, both are full-time environmental activists: she with the National Wildlife Federation, he with the Sierra Club. But they don't just fight the coal and oil companies; they also work hard to show their fellow Montanans that there are other ways to get energy and create jobs besides drilling and mining, ones that don't turn vast swaths of the state into sacrifice zones.
That is precisely what Bonogofsky was doing when the spill happened. She had arranged for 25 people on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation to learn how to install solar air heaters in their homes as part of the EPA's "climate showcase communities" program. She and Scott have also tried to live their beliefs on their farm, which just a few days ago was still a peaceful oasis circled by Billings' three oil refineries and one coal-fired power plant.
"We're trying to be self-sufficient," she told me. "We want to grow all our own food and grow food for other people, not be dependent on fossil fuels."
Now their oasis is choking in oil, carried onto their land by floods very likely linked to the burning of that very same black muck.





Tell it like it is
By Laverack, Richard at Jul 10, 2011 13:14 PM
Thank you for you article, I have been an avid reader of your work since No Logo and thought The Shock Doctrine was a defining moment in political literature. I watched your talk to Transition Town Totnes in the U.K. and posted a comment on their site regarding what for me is not a problem, but I appreciate that for you may be a necessary constraint at present. This is highlighted in Prof Jeff Masters excellent summary of "weather events" in 2010 in Climate Progress ;http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/24/253299/masters-driven-by-global-warming-it-is-quite-possible-that-2010-was-the-most-extreme-weather-year-globally-since-1816/#more-253299
Even in this forceful summary he slips into the IPCC "language" of "most likely", "appears to be", "highly improbable" etc., the scientific language that prevents a difinitive acceptance of the situation as it exists.
Your words above are to the point but when you pose the question "Did the pipeline cause the flooding?" I am sure most of your readers are screaming YES. Then we slip into the routine IPCC answer, that "no one weather event can be traced to climate change".
I think it is about time for a serious assault on "IPCC speak", it is well known that the IPCC findings are completely watered down from that which originates from the science. Was there "certainty" when banning aerosols to combat ozone depletion ?
I am sure that if it was not for this biased interference the public as a whole would be much better prepared and able to cope with the future.
It is only on the insistance of the U.S. and other fossil fuel driven countries, some of them the worst human rights abusers on the planet, that the area of "uncertainty" remains open, and I feel whilever this is the case, climate deniers will enjoy their field day.
Similarly, I read with interest the articles of Paul Gilding, Tim Garret and Tim Jackson and John Michael Greer on the impossiblity of our society bearing ANY resemblance to that which we experience today. The Union of Concerned Scientists expressed this fact to the world pre the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and yet we still pussyfoot around trying not to "frighten" people. Will there be jobs on a planet that is experiencing 4 degrees of temperature increase ?
Several of the authors quoted above are convinced that the planet, it's environment and it's economy, (which is wholly "owned" by the environment), is heading for collapse.
At some stage the truth will out, not the Hollywood response that "you can't deal with the truth", the truth that Rupert Murdoch had to admit to last week, after 5 years of denial.
You are one of the shining lights that can illuminate this crap, who can remove this veneer of complacency which the general public use as a comfort blanket when what it needs is the resilience which can only be found from knowing the truth.
Reply this comment