AFTER A winter without winter, the collective response to the nearly unbroken string of abnormally high temperatures is stunning. Broadcasters, radio personalities, meteorologists, and, let’s face it, a lot of us react to day after day of a March with temperatures in the 70s and 80s as an unalloyed good. Back before the signs of global warming became obvious, it was always nice to get an early taste of spring, but this is different. At some point year-after-year of way-above-average global temperatures should start to cause some change in policies.
However, we are reacting like frogs in a pot of heated water, enjoying the warmth as we stew in it. Indeed, we keep raising the flames. Many conservatives deny there’s a problem, and many liberals seem to view global warming as a minor matter, ranking far below other issues in importance.
I grew up in New England, and I like four actual seasons. But even if some of us seem to want to make New England into Florida, we might consider the consequences: the loss of many of our plants and animals, the prospect of intensifying storms, and erosion of the coastline, the proliferation of insects and storm surges that will devastate areas from the Cape to Boston.
And if we do make New England into Florida, what’s going to happen to Florida?
A couple of days of unseasonable sun are fun, but with these kinds of repeated temperature anomalies, it’s time to start taking serious threats seriously.