We all know that Manhattan is an island, but that fact comes second to it being an urban jungle. Because the water is relatively far because of the extractions of marsh lands (done by Robert Moses) and elevated land, we think we are an island, but an island safe from its waters (Steinberg, “Can New York City Survive the Sea?”). That was before Hurricane Sandy. The fatal and fantastically expensive storm destroyed numerous areas of New York, killing 71 people and displacing thousands. It left the tri-state area with damages amounting to $50 billion dollars, with $19 billion in economic impacts (Murphy, “The Flood Next Time”). But it did one thing that was priceless: It made people start to believe in climate change.
Hurricane Sandy’s aftermath helped to implement new awareness and more effective safety precautions, including easy-to-read signs by stabilized concrete boardwalks (Murphy, “The Flood Next Time”). But just because that will aid New York in the event of another Sandy-sized storm, doesn’t mean it will protect New York from another one like it, or worse. Climate scientists have predicted that at least 800,000 residents are living in zones susceptible to severe flooding by 2100 (13). So what did Bloomberg do, and what will de Blasio do, to help save those 80,000 people in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island?
Michael Bloomberg, a scaled-back Robert Moses, had a plan, whereas Bill de Blasio, a more Charles Dickens, “Tale of Two Cities,” social reformist, uses his, despite his criticism of him. Bloomberg had the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency (SIRR) implemented for rising ocean-levels, which became part of PlaNYC (his larger plan for climate change and adapting to millions of new residents over the next 30 years) (). Murphy’s article continues to say that de Blasio’s focus seems to be on reducing carbon footprints and luring new developments so that buildings would be up to code and more resilient to flooding. While the storm surge plan ensures adequate protection, it does not protect all of the city, and is no match for the unpredictable Atlantic Ocean. “The problem with a wall,” Klaus Jacob, a Columbia University scholar and part of the city’s climate change panel, explains, “however high it’s built, someday a wave will be big enough to top it.” Bloomberg contended by opting for a pluralistic approach involving portable floodwalls to protect vulnerable areas (Steinberg).But the problem is that we’re trying to postpone a problem, not prevent it. We should be doing things, like de Blasio’s carbon footprint awareness, to stop sea levels from rising. But that’s harder than we think. Reducing our emissions would slow down the rise, but it’s too late to stop it all together. This will buy more time for adaptation measures (Plumer, “Can we stop the seas from rising? Yes, but less than you think.”) Yale Climate Connections believes that implementing both hard (wall) and soft (vegetation) shorelines can help protect coastal areas and diminish some of the impact (Jane Ellen Spiegel).
Is there something else we can do? Is there a city in more imminent danger than New York, and does she have a plan that we can follow? Like New York, Venice was once thought of more as a city than island, but once water levels rose and began to enter doorways of their homes (and the homes used to be twenty feet above sea-level,) serious action needed to take place, and now. However, the plan is to create a wall, nothing more innovative or cheaper. The river Thames in London is a rare exception of modern engineering, successfully saving London from storm surges up the river. But those walls cost billions and take decades. We don’t have time or money, especially in Venice’s case. Their barrier MOSE (Modulo Sperimentale Elettromeccanico), which is to be operational in 2018, was first put into motion in 1966. Groundwater pumping is now prohibited, which slowed the rise to 1 mm. But MOSE (named after the Biblical character who separated the sea) is much more complicated and sophisticated. It consists of three separate flood barriers, each made up of 20 individual gates bound by the hinge of the floor of the lagoon. The hinges are the genius. They are hollow, allowing them to fill with water. So when the weather’s calm, the gates sit on the lagoon, but when high tide threatens, the water is pumped out of the gates and replaced with air, causing the gates to float up and create a barrier as high as 9 feet tall. But this is only in theory, because it has not been completed yet.
Originally priced at $2 billion, the innovative wall is now ringing in at $6 billion, creating a high-profiled corruption scandal, nicknaming it “a Ferrari on the seafloor” (Goodell, “Rising Waters: Can a Massive Barrier Save Venice from Drowning?”) Over $1 billion went to politicians who rigged contracts and kept money for vacation homes – not in Venice, of course. But, the new council insists, those bad people are out, and the MOSE project will be completed. This doesn’t include maintenance or alterations due to new studies and projections. This is 1966 problem put into action in 2018. The sea level projections are totally off, but a do-over is not an option.
Let this be a warning to great cities, like New York, when something goes awry. Don’t assume it won’t happen again. Because it probably will, and it will be worse.
References (in addition to the required readings):
https://e360.yale.edu/features/rising-waters-can-a-massive-sea-barrier-save-venice-from-drowning
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/as-sea-levels-rise-how-best-to-protect-our-coasts/
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=.a9dd732385c5
I think you summarize the two readings really well and I particularly like the comparison you made between New York and other European cities surrounded by water, like London and Venice. You argue that de Blasio’s plan is more advantageous than Bloomberg’s because it has a preventative aspect (ex. carbon footprint awareness), but I think that even if we were to look at Bloomberg’s plan, it also would have prevented further disaster. He called for scientist to meet together and conduct a plan/solution for future flooding. Though the walls they were talking about were solely hypothetical and would have only temporarily solve the issue, the action to have a meeting, in itself, is preventative. He was at least being proactive and producing conferences on the different options, but it usually takes a long time, along with trial and error, to finally “solve” an issue or relieve it. And to comment on the comparison on Venice, I think you make an interesting case. Venice is clearly in more imminent danger than we are, and maybe that’s why we should look to them. Hundreds of years ago, Venice might have been in New York’s current position. This is a clear example that when no action, or not enough action, is done there will be severe consequences.
I appreciated Melissa laying out the plans of both Bloomberg and De Blasio because I think it offers a perfect chance to compare the two.
I personally think that we can’t turn away from the idea that something needs to be done in both the short term and long term sense. All semester we have talked about how “Band-Aid” solutions are not the best way to approach more intricate issues. However, I do think that in certain cases, such as this, that a short-term solution is needed while we work on a long-term one.
We aren’t going to be able to come up with a counter-attack on global warming and we definitely won’t be able to slow it down as quickly as we need to. Especially, when we are relying on the government to create laws that are environmentally conscious to accomplish that. So, I do think that finding some way to protect the city now is important even if that is not what we continue with in the end.
Now, that doesn’t mean I think building walls is the short-term solution. In fact, from what I have read, they can often cause more harm than good. For the most part, the wall is meant to “deflect” the water meaning that the water is being displaced to other areas without walls and causing greater damage (Bennington-Castro, 2017). And eventually, we will need to rebuild the walls as the water erodes them which could end up being costly (Bennington-Castro, 2017).
Instead, there is an alternative option – “living shorelines” (Bennington-Castro, 2017). The living shorelines are composed of “mainly natural materials” that can absorb the water and the wave energy without damaging the city it surrounds. Plus, since it is natural, the shorelines grow over time and become more stable as the ecosystem flourishes. According to a survey of North Carolina’s three coastal regions, Hurricane Irene inflicted damage on 76 bulkheads but shorelines protected by marshes had zero damage inflicted on them (Bennington-Castro, 2017).
Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be helpful if another Sandy hit New York City unless the shoreline was extremely well-developed. But, it’s said in this article that “natural and artificial protections” could help contain the damage (Bennington-Castro, 2017).
Ultimately, this isn’t a perfect solution. But, at least this one offers a more environmentally friendly approach that might meet in the middle for environmentalists and government officials. And it would not be a forever solution. This is just a barrier to keep the damage we have already had on the environment from hurting our city while we devise a better plan to address the bigger issue of climate change.
* As of April 2018, there is a living shoreline being built on Alley Pond Park according to the official website of the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks).*
References:
Bennington-Castro, J. (2017). Walls Won’t Save Our Cities from Rising Seas. Here’s What Will. https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/walls-won-t-save-our-cities-rising-seas-here-s-ncna786811
NYC Parks. (2018). Alley Pond Park Living Shoreline Construction. https://www.nycgovparks.org/planning-and-building/capital-project-tracker/project/9002