Seong Im Hong
November 5, 2012
Sandy, Katrina, Global Warming
I don’t know if global warming caused Sandy— doubtlessly, this will be discussed in detail later in the course—but we do know that storm surge, or, storm pushing roiling ocean waters onto land, is exacerbated by the rising water levels. (NYT, “Are Humans to Blame? Science Is Out”) The water caused unbelievable damages. On Sunday afternoon, I packed the barest amount of clothes and my laptop, believing that the evacuation would last for a day, just as it did last year when Hurricane Irene caused evacuation around the dorms. After the storm, however, I found myself stranded in Long Island for more than a week without power. When I walked around, I saw trees uprooted in front of houses and branches poking through windows like an arrow through a torso. I read about the damages done in lower Manhattan and Staten Island. One of fellow Macaulay scholar lost his childhood home.
For long we have said time and time again that Global Warming is a long-term problem that is often left on the back burner. But with Hurricane Sandy, can Global Warming be brought to the center of the political discourse? Hurricane Katrina didn’t do much to bring global warming to the table, as far as I can tell, but it also didn’t hit a politically powerful area like New York City, and certainly not during a volatile period like now, right before the elections. Already, I see op-eds linking Global Warming with the damages due to Hurricane Sandy and possibly to the hurricane itself.
(And of course, FOX denies Global Warming, as usual.)
But besides wondering what we could do and what could happen as a result: we already know what we can do to prevent a future disaster like this from happening. Greenhouse gases are doubtlessly causing the oceans to rise by melting glaciers. Yet, we have ways to deal with greenhouse gases—according to study “Recovery of Methane from Gas Hydrate Intercalated within Natural Sediments Using CO2 and a CO2/N2 Gas Mixture,” for example, we can sequester greenhouse gases by using it to dehydrate Methane Hydrates. This is also a valorization/green engineering process, in which we use unwanted byproduct to our activities as a source for valuable energy source (methane). I’m not sure if this process itself is financially viable, but it’s a start. Surely with enough money pumped in the research, we can fine-tune this process to produce not only energy but also reduce greenhouse gases and prevent further tragedies like flooding due to storm surges.
On October 4th, we talked in class about Mayor’s Advisory Panel on climate change. In 2009, the panel announced that with global climate change, there will be more intense rainstorm that lead to flooding. The last bullet point I wrote under the topic is this:
- Flooding (lower Manhattan).
When I wrote those words down, it was probably with a sense of boredom and detachment. Well, yes, flooding will happen. Ocean levels will rise, and when storms come and go, the waters will get to land more easily. That makes sense.
Until this week, I had not realized how bad a flood could be. I am used to the comforts of modern life, including electricity and Internet on demand and mobility powered by the city’s electricity and MTA. Storm-related tragedies (nor inconveniences, but actual “I-lost-my-house” tragedies) were a thing of fiction, much like doomsday predictions of crazy preachers or the film The Day After Tomorrow. It is not anymore. It probably isn’t to many New Yorkers anymore.
We already had a taste of what would happen if we let greenhouse gases pollution go unchecked. It is up to us to decide what to do with this knowledge. I hope that we do the right thing.
