The online coverage of Sandy is incredible and horrible. Reports of fires and Con Ed plants arcing rolling in on Twitter. Watching that while listening to the NYC police scanner just makes me want to put a giant bell jar over SF and keep it safe.
What we’ve built is less permanent than we think. I hope this will at least show people the potential costs of a changing climate, which are not limited to temperatures only, and how seriously we should take change on such a scale.
EDIT
A couple of things to consider, on the climate and coastal flooding angle:
Elizabeth Kolbert (who has written an excellent book on climate) in the New Yorker:
As with any particular “weather-related loss event,” it’s impossible to attribute Sandy to climate change. However, it is possible to say that the storm fits the general pattern in North America, and indeed around the world, toward more extreme weather, a pattern that, increasingly, can be attributed to climate change.
Extreme summertime heat, which just a few decades ago affected much less than 1% of the earth’s surface, “now typically covers about 10% of the land area,” the paper observed. “It follows that we can state, with a high degree of confidence, that extreme anomalies [like heat waves] such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 were a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small.” It is worth noting that one of several forces fuelling Sandy is much-higher-than-average sea-surface temperatures along the East Coast.
Chris Mooney, who wrote a book about his family’s experiences during Katrina and climate change politics pointed out in Mother Jones that there have been plenty of studies warning about the flood risk in NYC and other coastal cities in the last few years, especially in light of Katrina. “We have a terrible track record of dealing with long range risks in this country. This is exacerbated by a presentist, science-phobic mindset,” Mooney says, and points out that by 2100, what is typically an once every 100 years storm surge event will be an once every 20 years event. With that in mind, there was a 2011 report estimating the extent of effects of a 100-year storm on the NYC transit system, and according to that report:
The researchers estimate that, after a storm of this magnitude, it could take the subway system about 21 days to get working at 90 percent functionality. If all potential damage is considered, Jacob and colleagues warn that timeline could increase to several months, and that “permanent restoration of the system to the full revenue service that was previously available could take more than two years.”
We can’t be so short-sighted that we fail to do the math on things like this. For some reason, our country hates the idea of preventative measures in any field other than national security. Health? Nope. Climate? Nope.
Mooney points out that New York did create a panel to study sea rise, but nothing came of it:
LOWER MANHATTAN — The state just released a long-anticipated report on how to combat rising sea levels but the city isn’t on board. Adam Freed, deputy director of the Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, is worried that the state’s recommendations will restrict development in the city, which could hurt the region’s economy.
New York City is well aware of the potential dangers and is considering installing storm surge barriers to protect the city’s 570 miles of coastline. Since the city’s sensitive infrastructure, like subway tunnels and sewer systems, cannot be moved to higher ground, it makes sense to protect them with physical barriers.
The state, though, said storm surge barriers may be too expensive and should be avoided unless further study proves them necessary.
Guess we might have a different definition of “necessary” now. But the scary thing is, these events are just the more visible effects. There is a whole slew of other effects that are more subtle and possibly will unfold over decades. The changing climate will affect our agricultural areas and food supply. Droughts will make water shortages a huge issue. Warmer climates mean migration of biting insects carrying diseases to areas where people are not accustomed to them. Who knows what any of these things will really bring?
Just a couple of months ago at the RNC, Romney made light of the idea of dealing with or preventing rising waters. “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans,” he said, and paused for laughter in the audience. “And heal the planet.” Pause for more laughter and jeering. (Who are these people?!) He continued: “My promise is to help you and your families.”
Those things may turn out to be synonymous.
It’s ironic that climate change is considered a leftist environmentalist issue, because as far as I can tell, scientists tend not to make dramatic, risky, unlikely statements. IMO what everyone has been saying now is frankly likely to be conservative and what we might see and experience could be much worse. No one knows and it is this uncertainty that is the really scary thing.
I hope we don’t wait to see the estimates proven right before we act. That is the stupidest route to take. Gov. Cuomo said it succinctly:
We have a new reality, and old infrastructures and old systems.