A plan to expand a recreational pathway along Staten Island’s waterfront was recently announced. This plan seems to exemplify both Greenberg and Checker’s argument that economic interests take priority over genuine environmental remediation and preservation and resident needs, despite being framed otherwise. According to the proposal, the path would create a “continuous greenway from the Verrazano to the Goethals bridges” and “improve the quality of life on the North Shore by addressing…pressing issues of transportation, waterfront access, and economic development (Knudson).” Benefits of this greenway include economic development, cultural preservation of historic homes along the waterfront, restoring community waterfront access and “environmental health by preserving marshes and estuaries along the trail (NYC.gov).”
This proposal is in a very early stage and there is no real plan yet for how Staten Island plans to get funding for and develop the greenway. However, there is an issue with the plan that is inexcusable even at this early stage. While the plan claims this greenway would signal an “environmental renaissance” by creating a more natural solution for transportation and by preserving the local ecosystems, the plan makes no mention of what steps it plans to take for the more pressing issues of flood prevention and rising water levels.
Also, although the plan’s proponents frame this greenway as a benefit for Staten Island residents, comments on this plan indicate otherwise. One commenter expressed their strong disapproval over the Greenway, when other more pressing issues have still not been resolved, like the “pathetic condition of our road, countless potholes, [and the] surface is breaking down resulting in asphalt simply turning into stones (Knudson).” Another comment states that the residents had “never heard of this summit,” implying that the people living in these communities had minimal participation in this discussion. This seems to be yet another plan has a secondary focus on its residents’ needs, with profit being its primary motive.
Source:
Knudson, Annalise. “Community Explores Building North Shore Waterfront Greenway.” SILive.com. May 06, 2018. Accessed May 09, 2018. http://www.silive.com/news/2018/05/post_2150.html.
http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/statenislandcb1/downloads/pdf/the_north_shore_waterfront_greenway_park_presentation.pdf
**This post is replacing a comment.
Frankly, when I hear “environmentalism” and “green,” I automatically think of the (white, middle-class/upper-class) elite. Mainstream environmental justice has never been geared towards minority, low-income communities. Both Miriam Greenberg and Melissa Checker seem to agree and attempt at explaining as to why that it is.
Firstly, Mother Nature may not discriminate against anyone when she strikes, but New York City’s government certainly does. Both Greenberg and Checker discuss how city policies and processes prevent local, low-income communities from being able to participate in a form of environmental justice that addresses their needs. As Greenberg points out, a city’s recovery and redevelopment can determine how much a disaster (like Hurricane Sandy) sets back our city, even if it cannot truly prevent the natural disaster from happening. Due to the heft of funds (from previous disasters) dedicated to repairing more affluent areas, areas (such as Lower Manhattan) were able to come away from the next disaster less damaged and repair much quicker than other areas. This illuminates the discriminatory nature of the city (and free-market capitalism). Greenberg reveals that it was a bigger priority for the wealthier sectors with private firms and high-end residential buildings to get back to business as soon as possible, whereas less affluent areas that contain high concentrations of public housing, had to wait weeks and/or months for their basic needs to be met (like electricity, heat, water, building repairs).
However, when non-profit organizations–which consist its local low-income, minority community members–try to take back control the fate of the area they live in, the city creates institutional ways to silence them. For instance, when the Port Richmond community tried to pose its own solutions and plans regarding BOA (Brownfield Opportunity Areas) to the Department of City Planning, DCP simply brushed off the community’s plans and regurgitate their own. These plans included taking vacant lots, vacant businesses, and dilapidated homes and building flood protections and cleaning up local contamination because “What was the point of creating green space, waterfront access, and bike paths while ignoring flood problems and toxic sites?” (Checker 16). In contrast, the city government presents environmental issues as something that can be solved through private investment rather than something like sustainability programs. The city (yet again) wants to continue pursuing environmental reform only if it means the area can be gentrified afterward so that the city can continue to pursue its market-based approaches. This includes developing high-end lofts, condos, and more on natural flood barriers while simultaneously proposing open green spaces that end up displacing low-income residents of said spaces. Jedediah Purdy also highlights that:
While more prosperous people tend to take clean and safe living spaces for granted and [are] able to escape to wild places that feel “ecological” or “natural,” poor people often have very little choice but to spend their lives in compromised artificial environments.
Basically, low-income residents must deal with the city shifting environmental burdens from gentrifying areas to low-income areas and thereby be exposed to more concentrated levels of to toxic chemicals, waste, and pollution. In contrast, the elites have the privilege of creating extra (residential) green space to escape to when looking for more clean spaces.
Furthermore, while for-profit groups and businesses are able to get a streamlined application process that circumvents city council, community boards, and the public on “cleaning up” and redeveloping brownfields, local communities like in Port Richmond do not. Instead, they must deal with a prolonged-faux-democratic process and busy work meant to give the illusion of citizen participation. As the activist, Beryl Thurman points out:
No disrespect to anyone but there is plenty of work to be done here on Staten Island that is legitimate without being given busy work to do in order to make the government look like it’s doing its job. All the while the real issues regarding these communities continue to plod along as if we have all the time in the world for these problems to be resolved and come to a reasonable conclusion. And to be honest we don’t have a lot of time, we are on the same clock as the developers, businesses and mother nature, it’s whoever gets here first. (Checker 20)
This brings to me my final question: What do you do when the free-market economy undermines the democracy in your city? The city prioritizes economic goals over public health and local needs. It would rather build the largest Ferris wheel on the North Shore to further its agenda of bringing in (global) capital, tourists, and this agenda of being the ever-developing, best city than work towards a managed retreat (discussed in my previous post.) Mainstream environmentalism over-values “elite forms of advocacy, like litigation and high-level lobbying, and doesn’t make enough room for popular engagement” (Purdy). It creates a movement of elites who have limited interaction with, and do relatively little to empower, the people who live with the most severe environmental problems. Are there ways communities can support each other and pursue their own solutions without governmental approval? Ways that, even if the government disapproved and did not assist in providing funds, that communities can pursue their solutions anyway and take back control of their land? How would we get access to the tools, knowledge, and resources that allow us to make this a reality on our own? I just do not see the point in trying to be democratic in a faux-democratic system. It only matters that we are democratic within our impacted communities.
Additional Sources
Purdy, Jedediah. “Environmentalism Was Once a Social-Justice Movement.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 7 Dec. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/how-the-environmental-movement-can-recover-its-soul/509831/.
On April 13th I attended the Student Homelessness and Housing Insecurity at New York City Colleges event on the Queens College campus with the guest speaker of Steven Banks, the Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration. While the first portion of this event was very informative especially considering the statistics that were given about homelessness in the New York City, I felt as if the title of this event was a little misleading due to Commissioner Banks’ focus on the plan that Mayor De Blasio implemented in February 2017 called “Turning the Tide on Homelessness.” Rather than talking about homelessness within the student population at New York City colleges, he spoke on homelessness in general.
Like I mentioned beforehand, the beginning of this event was very informative. It started off with a video that gave some general information about how social workers employed by the Department of Social Services help homeless families and after that Commissioner Banks gave a speech. To be honest, this video kind of felt like a time killer as it didn’t relate as closely to the rest of the information so there was a bit of a disjointed feel as we transitioned. When Commissioner Banks gave his speech, there were many numbers and statistics, and it seemed like he had the information he gave us memorized by rote. He introduced the issue by talking a little about SNAP (food stamps), permanent housing, and the department that he works for – which is apparently a “superagency,” meant to make services easier to deliver. Commissioner Banks let us know about New York’s right to shelter (as opposed to other places like Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, etc.) and that most of our homeless people are in the shelter systems (which I actually later discovered was an inaccurate statement through the research that I did for my project on how the MTA approaches homelessness). The rise in homelessness in this city (a 115% rise from 2005-2015 to be exact) is due to the fact that rent has gone up drastically (18+%) while income has not kept up at the same rate (<5%+). In addition to this, there have been changes in rent stabilization laws where 150,000 units of rent stabilized apartments have been lost from 1994-2012.
Commissioner Banks emphasized that the cores of approaching homelessness are prevention, shelter, and permanent housing. Regarding the plan called “Turning the Tide” there are 4 major steps to be taken. The first is to prevent homelessness wherever and whenever you can, which is when the commissioner mentioned that there is universal access to counsel in housing court (which was left as a vague statement – I’m not quite sure how this would necessarily play out in these situations). The second is bringing people in from the streets through a program called HOME-STAT which focuses not on the numbers but rather a person-by-person approach. Commissioner Banks talked about the importance of trust and persistence – considering that there could be resistance – along with offering the “right tools.” The third step was rehousing people and providing rental assistance, given that we can’t have a shelter system without the means of getting people out of them. With that being said, we went off on a bit of a tangent about breaking the trajectory of growth and supportive housing (which is developed housing where the city is paying for rent and social services – there is a focus on mental health). We came back to the fourth step, which is to transform the shelter system which currently has no organized approach. When restructuring the shelter system, the commissioner said they are attempting to keep people near their communities and so, putting people and communities first. They are currently opening 90 new borough-based shelters to keep people close by their support systems and to shrink the footprint of shelter systems. With all these steps laid out, he let us know that since this program started a year ago, there has been a 27% decrease in evictions, 1500 people off the streets, 81,000 people accounted for, and 17 new facilities.
Along with all the progress, the city has invested a quarter of a million dollars into non-profit organizations and established the NYPD as responsible for security in shelters. At this point, the commissioner’s spiel seemed to die down and he facilitated a Q&A session. When asked about the discomfort the presence of the NYPD might cause for certain demographics in the shelter system, he responded that the officers assigned to shelters are specialized in de-escalating conflict and that the NYPD are only overseeing the security – apparently peace officers and contracted social service security are the ones actually posted at shelters. I found that this answer didn’t answer the question directly at all and just was a roundabout way of responding to this important question. Another person brought up the homeless youth as a demographic at risk and the commissioner responded that there was actually a different department that dealt with underage youth which made me wonder how they could effectively attempt to help these people if they didn’t combine their resources. At this point, Commissioner Banks also brought up the first LGBTQ shelter targeted towards those aged 21-30 that opened up in the city but did not have any information regarding how this shelter was any different than others and how it would benefit the target demographic specifically. I’m not sure if the Commissioner himself was just uninformed or if this was just an attempt to appease the general public and to seem like they’re being open and accommodating by having a token shelter. This talk for me truly highlighted the disconnect between the government elite and the common person, especially regarding very valid and pressing concerns that pertain to the lower class but may not even be on the radar of those who have the power to do anything about it.
Despite many claims to ridicule or mystify global warming, its effects are apparent by both scientific fact and its physical manifestations. New York City, for example, is threatened by rising sea-levels, storm surges, and an increased intensity of hurricanes. With the warming climate it is projected that NYC will experience “7.5-foot floods every 25 years, and by 2030 these floods” are projected to occur “every five years.” (Meyer 2017). In an attempt to halt these projections and adjust our planet’s future, NYC aligned itself with Paris in its Climate Agreement. Despite Trump’s decision to “withdraw from the Paris climate accord, thereby weakening efforts to combat global warming” (Shear 2017) NYC along with 20 US states and more than 50 of its largest cities have committed to combat global warming known as “America’s pledge.” (Harvey; Watts 2017) Under de Blasio New York City’s plan is known as 1.5 °C as it was the temperature agreed as an “outcome in order to limit the worst impacts of climate change.” (nycgov 2017)
Under the plan key actions include:
(nycgov 2017)
In efforts to align with the Paris climate accord, hopefully NYC can shift away from the dynamic of economic gentrification clearly presented in such cases like the highline. The 1.5 °C plan defines a promising shift in focus on long-term solutions rather than solutions such as dams and barriers that decrease in usefulness and increase in maintenance fees as years go by.
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)
Throughout this semester, we have been learning about the “developments” of New York City and how the greed for New York City to become a greater, more successful city have come at the cost of its people, namely the working-class and minority populations. The developments have also come at the cost of the city’s survival as well.
Firstly, it is important to discuss the tangible evidence of climate change as an issue that is inevitably become more and more serious. In 1983, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency” claimed that there is “a 1% risk of a flood in any given year” (Steinberg 1). It was not updated until after Hurricane Sandy (which is 29 years later), which revealed that there had been a 45% increase of a flood and that around 400,000 New Yorkers lived on the floodplain. (However, there are also “businesses employing 270,000 workers” (Murphy 3). The number of casualties due to the flood has increased at such a rate that the number of people directly affected by the flood in New York City is higher than that of any other U.S. city. By 2050, this number is expected to double. This is due to the fact that New York City, as it expands, relies on underwater land and wetlands to create room for its landfills, roads and more. The construction in New York City does not include elevated buildings either (like those in Florida). That being said, there are apparently building codes that NYC must follow that address this, but neither Ted Steinberg nor Jarrett Murphy goes into detail about said codes in the readings. Finally, in March 2018, there were 4 nor’easters (Gonen and Musumeci).
Regardless, given all these statements, it is clearly imperative that New York City takes strides towards environmental reform. New York City must create plans, policies, and structures that are dedicated to supporting the people that become (or already are) “poor and dispossessed” (Steinberg 2). Two of the main solutions discussed by Ted Steinberg and Jarrett Murphy in their respective texts are storm-surge barriers and a managed retreat.
Storm-surge barriers are currently used in European cities and U.S. cities like Connecticut and Providence, Rhode Island. So far, they have been successful in protecting the cities from flooding. However, NYC is reluctant to take the same approach due to:
the financial costs, especially because it would have to be funded by federal taxpayers who do not want to take NYC’s burden when they do not benefit directly
the barriers may worsen the pollution problem is Jamaica Bay because it would interfere with the effluent treatment plants from sewage, which convert wastewater so that it can be returned to the water cycle
would not protect everyone, only certain areas
the fact a national study group rejected the Rockaway Inlet barrier plan because they believed hurricanes in New York City rarely happened, even though the risk of a hurricane was high and increasing as the city’s density increased
could lead to even more development in low-lying areas because of the overdependence on the barrier to be able to protect them completely.
Steinberg, who explored this approach, did not mention whether other cities that have implemented the storm-surge barriers deal with similar pollution problem like NYC, which would have helped determine whether NYC could get around that obstacle. As for the projected increased development in low-lying areas, that is already happening even without the protection of the barriers. As noted by Murphy, there are already luxury condos being made near the coastline and overall increase in construction due to NYC’s increasing population. Instead, can’t the city create regulations that prohibit such intense construction near the barriers?
An alternative approach that I am more for, but also fear the obstacles of, is a managed retreat; “[t]hat means creating a plan now for pulling back from the water when the times comes, including where and how to move people, and dealing with the inevitable tensions over equity, who gets to stay and who has to go” (Murphy 2). This is where I become anxious about who gets to stay and go because given New York City’s history… it is always the working-class and minority communities that are forced to go. The affordability crisis mentioned in the reading are already driving us out as it is. Furthermore, the continued developments on the coastline are leading to higher insurance rates, which put the working-class at the waterfront at an even bigger disadvantage, on top of being more vulnerable to flooding. Is it time that New York City took advantage of Robert Moses vision of letting people leave New York? Should we stop trying to keep people in and let them move–encourage them to? This would be so that those who do not the options to move out, like poor, working-class and minority communities, can stay in areas less affected by the flood zone. After all, there are projections that within the next century, parts of Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens will become unlivable. This approach would also mean that the city buys people out of properties that are in too deep in the flood zone, destroying them, and letting nature take its course. Furthermore, it would mean destroying single-family homes in non-flood-zone areas and creating larger, taller buildings so that they can house more people. However, the people on the floodplains or flood zone are usually poor, minority communities who receive public housing in these flood zone areas. Are they going to be forced to be displaced again? But if they aren’t, will we let climate change wipe out these communities? Another concern I have with this is that the proportion of those displaced is not equal to the proportion of people that would be rehoused, much less able to afford to live in the new buildings. According to NYC Commissioner Banks, the city already had an 18+% in rent (with only 5% increase in income) between 2005-2015, which led to 115% increase in homelessness. How can we create effective solutions that do not aggravate our pre-existing issues in NYC?
Winter nor’easters are also more common in New York City. The problem with these storms becoming a more common occurrence is that I fear the city (government) will become desensitized and expect the city to continue to function as normal. This March, schools, colleges, and workplaces were closed, allowing people to prioritize their safety and health (Gonen and Musumeci). But given the growth-AKA-businesslike nature of NYC, how long will that last?
Overall, I cannot help but think about the link between free-market capitalism and NYC’s (lack of) environmental reform. Much of the obstacles that prevent NYC from taking these solutions are in some way due to free-market capitalism, or how it works in the scale of the U.S. and/or NYC. The rise in homelessness and affordability crisis is thanks to gentrification and the tools used to make it happen. Minorities have been pushed out further into flood zones to make room for more “valuable” constituents like corporations, businesses, and the middle/upper class. Even the very notion of expanding NYC so that it could, in turn, bring more people, more money, and more capital is rooted in capitalism, which started our entire dilemma in the first place. Elizabeth Kolbert of New York Review of Books agrees when she explains:
Our economy has been built on the promise of endless growth. But endless growth is incompatible with radically reduced emissions; it’s only at times when the global economy has gone into free fall that emissions have declined by more than marginal amounts. What’s needed… is “managed degrowth.” Individuals are going to have to consume less, corporate profits are going to have to be reduced (in some cases down to zero), and governments are going to have to engage in the kind of long-term planning that’s anathema to free marketeers.
I am not here to argue for the reform of capitalism or entire systemic change, but it is difficult to dispute the links between these two issues.
Works Cited
Banks, Steven (2018). “Turning the Tide on Homeless.” Speech. Queens College, New York, NY.
Gonen, Yoav, and Natalie Musumeci. “Fourth Nor’easter in 3 Weeks Pummels NYC.” New York Post, New York Post, 21 Mar. 2018, nypost.com/2018/03/21/fourth-noreaster-in-3-weeks-pummels-nyc/.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. “Can Climate Change Cure Capitalism?” The New York Review of Books, The New York Review of Books, 4 Dec. 2014, www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/12/04/can-climate-change-cure-capitalism/.
Murphy, Jarrett. “The Flood Next Time.” The Nation, 2 Nov 2015.
Steinberg, Ted. “Can New York City Survive the Sea?” Dissent Magazine, 2014
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
While reading the two articles I was hoping for some mention about winter storms because I wanted to understand global warmings effect on nor’easters. Yes, flooding will become a large problem in the future and we must start preparing for it now, but winter storms to me are a more pressing matter at the moment due our increasingly harsh winters. New York was hit by four nor’easters alone in the month of March (CNBC 2018). Some people may say “It’s really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!” (Trump 2015) to refute the fact that global warming is real, but sorry Mr. President climate change is not some more fake news. The colder temperatures along the eastern coast of the United States is due to warm temperatures in the artic making the jet stream to swing farther south and the jet stream lingers (National Geographic 2018). This helps contribute to the massive storms this past winter because nor’easters draw their energy from warm and cold regions clashing (grist.org 2018). The winter storms give us a taste of the flooding that is to come as the winter storms bring with them flooding of coast parts of New York (New York City Police Department 2018). There is proof of climate change causing extreme weather in our area, yet most people and politicians continue to ignore it. Climate change is not a matter that we can continue to overlook, and unless something is done to prevent or lessen it, coastal New York City may not have to wait till 2100 to see a six-foot sea-level rise (Murphy 2015).
Aiello, Chloe (2018) Fourth nor’easter in a Month Strikes the Eastern Seaboard
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/fourth-noreaster-in-a-month-strikes-the-eastern-seaboard.html (Last accessed 3 May 2018)
Trump, Donald (2015) Twitter.com (Last accessed 3 May 2018)
Gibbens, Sarah (2018) Why a Warming Artic May Be Causing Colder U.S.
Wintershttps://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/global-warming-arctic-colder-winters-climate-change-spd/ (Last accessed 4 May 2018)
Holthaus, Eric (2018) Nor’easters are Now Just as Dangerous as Hurricanes https://grist.org/
article/boston-noreaster-hurricane-like-winter-bomb-cyclone/
New York City Police Department (2018) Updates on the March 21 Winter Storm http://
www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0321/updates-the-march-21-winter-storm#/0
Murphy, Jarrett (2015) The Flood Next Time (Last accessed 4 May 2018)
In The New York Times article titled “How We Know It Was Climate Change,” Noah S. Diffenbaugh examines how changes in the climate consequently creates conditions for extreme climate disaster such as hurricanes. By examining all the contributing factors to Hurricane Harvey, Diffenbaugh noticed how global warming played a significant role in the disaster. Because of global warming, the moisture in the atmosphere increases, causing a storm to produce more precipitation. Furthermore, not only is there an increase in rainfall, coastal flooding is more likely as well (Diffenbaugh 2017).
The article “Can New York City Survive the Sea?” discusses the detrimental impact of hurricanes and the need of government officials to be aware of the flooding crisis NYC may face. From the article written by Diffenbaugh, there is clear evidence that global warming influences the precipitation of hurricanes, causing flooding to be more likely. By examining the conditions and potential causes of specifically Hurricane Harvey, he concludes that global warming does influence the extreme storms in United States. Diffenbaugh argues that we cannot assume that each condition contributing to a hurricane arise by chance, but rather we need to take a more proactive stance in mitigating the consequences of global warming. But, what exactly does that look like? De Blasio hans’t ignored the issue, but hasn’t made much progress; he has tried to set the arbitrary boundaries of NYC by building a physical border, but this hasn’t been helpful in preventing coastal flooding.
Awareness is key to alleviating these environmental conditions. Steinberg elaborates on how de Blasio did not specifically incorporate environmental reform into his political agenda, but rather centers his political vision on social reform. Similarly, Bloomberg was aware of global warming during his administration and decided to address it by expanding New York City; consequently, he contributed to the hazardous conditions by piling more people into low-lying environment that is more prone to flooding (Steinberg 2014). In regard to Bloomberg’s and de Blasio’s administration, it is evident that there is a need to acknowledge that social reform and environmental issues go hand in hand.
Diffenbaugh predicts that there will be more hurricanes to come, hence there’s a need to protect people from it. Storm protection, whether it be restricting NYC boundaries or building more sturdy barriers, should be a key focus for governing officials as multiple NYC residents live in floodplains. Because of such storms, it was an alerting wake-up call that global warming and its consequences ought to be an issue that governing officials face head on or most of NYC will be washed up.
Steinberg T (2014) Can New York City Survive the Sea? https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/can-new-york-city-survive-the-sea (last accessed 27 April 2018)
Diffenbaugh N S (2017) How We Know It Was Climate Change. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/sunday/climate-change-global-warming.html (last accessed 1 May 2018)
