Both Ted Steinberg’s article “Can New York City Survive the Sea?” and Jarrett Murphy’s article “The Flood Next Time” focus on the major long-term threat of extreme flooding as sea levels rise due to climate change and the plans Mayors Bloomberg and de Blasio have put forth in dealing with this seemingly distant danger. However, the plans set in place such as those to construct barriers to prevent flooding and those to relocate the city are based on the presumption that sea levels will rise and we cannot prevent the water from rising. While this presumption may be true to some extent, there are certainly actions we can take to reduce New York City’s ecological impact and at least slow the pace of rising sea levels. As Brad Plumer states in his article, although “it’s unlikely that we could stop further rises altogether,” decreasing “our emissions would help slow the rate of sea-level rise” (Plumer 2012). Decreasing our emissions would in turn “[buy us] time for adaptive measures]” (Plumer 2012). However, if emissions continue to go unchecked, “sea levels could rise as much as 34 feet, or nine meters, by 2300” (Plumer 2012). Furthermore, the inherent problem with constructing artificial barrier to prevent flooding is that “the wall will eventually collapse” (Spiegel 2016). Spiegel discusses the possibility of creating “living shorelines” and “vegetated dunes” to serve as natural barriers to rising sea levels (Spiegel 2016). Both these barriers use vegetation to reduce the impact of flooding as they can absorb much of the water, and the plants also serve to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Ultimately, sea levels will rise and New York City must adapt or retreat, but reducing our emissions and implementing living shorelines and vegetative dunes can grant New York City more time to make the necessary changes to adjust to the changing climate.
Additional Sources Other Than Assigned Readings:
Plumer B (2012). Can We Stop the Seas from Rising? Yes, But Less Than You Think. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/11/01/can-we-stop-the-seas-from-rising-yes-but-less-than-you-think/?utm_term=.bd973c7b65d8 (last accessed 4 May 2018)
Spiegel J E (2016). As Sea Levels Rise, How Best to Protect Coasts? https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/as-sea-levels-rise-how-best-to-protect-our-coasts/ (last accessed 4 May 2018)
Jonathan makes a valid point about how New York City can try to buy time in order to make changes against climate change by reducing emissions and implementing new environmental tactics. The fact that the city can’t escape sea level rise completely seems more ideal than attempting to avoid it completely. The city has already developed so much and has already established certain priorities of money and infrastructure, that the environmental state of the city seems to have gotten lost in the background. We could buy time, but how much time could we really buy until it is too late? De Blasio created a plan in October 2017, listing out different goals for the city regarding recycling, waste, energy use, transportation and carbon. (nyc.gov) Many of these goals are targeted to be completed between 2020 and 2050, but according to Murphy’s map and a map from Business Insider, parts of the city can already be flooded by the 2020s. Sure, authorities like Mark Chambers (Director of the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability) can say we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but is that really possible in a city that relies on cars and public transit for everyday life? This city is comprised of roads and highways from left to right (Thanks, Robert Moses), and transportation has become a necessity of New York City. I do think the city should discuss more environmental friendly options of creating more natural fixes, like the vegetative dunes that Jonathan had mentioned. The city can try to buy as much time as they want with improved building designs and their “action plan.” However, I am truly fearful of how this city will look in the coming years and what the future generations will have to endure.
Garfield L (2017) Sea levels are rising faster than they have in 28 centuries — here’s where New York City could flood first. http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-city-flood-sea-level-rise-2017-5 (last accessed 5 May 2018)
Murphy J (2015) The Flood Next Time.
Office of the Mayor (2017) NYC Delivers First-Ever City Plan to Meet the Goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/634-17/nyc-delivers-first-ever-city-plan-meet-goals-the-paris-climate-agreement (last accessed 5 May 2018)
New York City is in trouble. FEMA recently discovered that if New York City floods, because of its development in low-lying areas, 400,000 New Yorker’s will be affected, and by 2050, this number will double (Steinberg 2014). Moreover, New York City’s Panel on Climate Change predicted that at this same time sea levels will have risen from 11-31 inches. Jonathan’s blog post continues to argue in conjunction with both of the readings assigned in class, “The Flood Next Time,” by Jarrett Murphy and “Can New York City Survive the Sea,” by Ted Steinberg, that the government is not taking permanent action to help reduce effects of global climate change in New York City. This argument is described perfectly in Murphy’s article when discussing the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) plan passed by Mayor Bloomberg after Hurricane Sandy and continued by Mayor de Blasio. SIRR is what is known as a flexible-adaption pathway, and it is essentially based around the fact that it is difficult to plan for something when you do not know what the long-term effects will be in the future. Some of the plans from SIRR include fixing beaches, drainage systems, levees, flood walls, and surge barriers (Murphy 2015). Additionally, during his term, Mayor Bloomberg released $19.5 billion to protect the city from storms through small barricades, portable flood walls and by the regeneration of old marshland opposed to building massive structures. What worried me the most about this plan, however, was that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be building these additions, and in the past they were known for fudging their numbers on environmental implications for another building project. These workers who lied in the past about impacts on the environment that one of their building projects might have had would be now working to build infrastructure to protect the environment (Steinberg 2014)! Furthermore, many environmentalists, like Klaus Jacob, argue that the city also needs a long-term vision (Murphy 2015). Moreover, this same concern that Jacob had was ironically highlighted in the Bloomberg administrations PlaNYC: A Greener, Greater New York which mentioned the prospect of implementing storm barriers, but also discussed how no barrier could protect all New Yorkers, and that it would be costly (Steinberg 2014). Although the Bloomberg Administration recognized that these plans might not be the most effective, it was still the path that they took. Murphy stated that the two biggest issues that a politician has for fighting against climate change are “courage and capital.” That being said, this January Mayor Bill de Blasio proved all these prior statements about New York City’s poor government planning wrong. In The New York Times article, “To Fight Climate Change, New York City Takes on Oil Companies,” by William Neuman, New York City’s current mayor took on many of the critiques that both authors aforementioned have had for him and his predecessor. This article discussed Mayor de Blasio’s new plans to fight climate change through a long-term “two-pronged attack.” This January, Mayor de Blasio vowed that the city would divest about $5 billion in pension funds from companies involved with fossil fuels. Moreover, the city also sued five major oil companies, BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell, on the basis that their scientists knew about climate change but help their conclusions so that the corporations could continue in acting corruptly. Although more could potentially be done, this was a great start for the new “national leader against climate change” in combating a monetary issue of lack of funds, and using it to fight global climate change and its looming effects on New York. Thus, perhaps New York City’s mayor will, in fact, prove both Murphy and Steinberg’s allegations wrong. City (Neuman 2018)
Work Cited:
Steinberg T, 2014. “Can New York City Survive the Sea?” Dissent. https://www.dropbox.com/s/0x6fjnbfcmnij7h/33%20Can%20New%20York%20City%20Surviv…Sea%3F%20%7C%20Dissent%20Magazine.pdf?dl=0
Murphy J, 2015. “The Flood Next Time.” The Nation. https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7ab4ncpz3oiqsp/Murphy%2C%20The%20Flood%20Next%20Time.pdf?dl=0
Neuman W, 2018. “To Fight Climate Change, New York City Takes On Oil Companies.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/nyregion/new-york-city-fossil-fuel-divestment.html
Jonathan finished his post discussing alternatives to artificial barriers, like living shorelines and vegetated dunes, and how they can provide help with flooding, and I found this an important point to make and wanted to go into detail into just how effective these alternatives can be and are. Instead of using our funds to build a Ferris Wheel on the floodplains in Staten Island to get more money into the city, we should be using that money to fund green infrastructure, which have positive effects on our environment. Green infrastructure can include alternatives like mossy wetlands and marshes on shorelines which not only were shown to be not affected by Hurricane Irene in North Carolina, but also showed high biodiversity (Gammon). Similarly, artificial oyster reefs and banks are adept at absorbing wave energy before it can get to shore, and can also reduce water pollution (Matchar). They’re being used in New Jersey, Florida, and Virginia with great results. There’s also the usage of porous concrete, which has been proven effective in preventing floods and absorbing storm water, according to a study done by the National University of Singapore (Kotwani). We know that construction can cause more air pollution and a sea wall may eventually collapse from waves eroding the sand and soil at the base of the wall, and so I think it’s imperative that we discuss how green infrastructure can be such a benefit to the city and to ourselves (Bennington-Castro).
References
Kotwani, Monica. “A Flood Prevention Idea … Using Porous Road Surfaces.” TODAYonline, 12 Sept. 2013, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/flood-prevention-idea-using-porous-road-surfaces.
Gammon, Katharine. “Marshes and Wetlands Beat Seawalls When It Comes to Protecting People and Wildlife.” TakePart, 14 Aug. 2015, http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/08/14/living-shorelines-fare-better-storms-and-help-species-thrive/.
Matchar, Emily. “As Storms Get Bigger, Oyster Reefs Can Help Protect Shorelines.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 10 Jan. 2018, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/storms-get-bigger-oyster-reefs-can-help-protect-shorelines-180967774/.
Bennington-Castro, Joseph. “Walls Won’t Save Our Cities from Rising Seas. Here’s What Will.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 27 July 2017, http://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/walls-won-t-save-our-cities-rising-seas-here-s-ncna786811.