New York City
has not armored itself from the upcoming floods that it will face. Responding to
the article from New York Times “New York is lagging as seas and risks rise,
critics warn” by Mireya Navaro, she writes about all the researches we already
have to make it a flood proof city, also what we already have done or have not
done to make it so and why it has not been done. Navaro writes that Douglas
Hill an engineer at Stony Brook University said that instead of planning to be
flooded “state and federal agencies should be investing in protection”
(Navaro). The people who have authority to make a change are the state and
federal agencies so instead of planning they should be investing towards making
a change. I agree with what they are saying because we are just wasting our
money and time on researches and planning and doing nothing to save ourselves
and our city where we reside in. We need to focus on our researches that we
already have to make it a flood prove city, then we can move on to other issues
like reduce polluting carbon dioxide which is actually causing our sea levels
to rise and the floods.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Feedback
I received few
comments from my peers on the first draft of my essay. My peers told me I had
too many questions in it but also how those questions made them think into the
matter. How there can be a good and a bad side of a situation. So I will try to
cut down on my questions and look for another way to write the information
down. My biggest concern about my essay is what if I go on with information
that is not related to this matter itself. I need help in cutting down
information and not go on and write about issues.
Monday, March 17, 2014
My Response on New York Times Article
In this blog
I will be responding to an article that I read in The New York Times “New York
is lagging as seas and risks rise, critics warn” by Mireya Navaro and which was
published in September 10, 2012. This article first tells the readers how far
behind New York is to armor itself from the climate change; secondly what New
York can do to improve itself from the upcoming floods; and lastly the high
expenses to make New York a climate proof city. When this article was published
Hurricane Sandy did not happen yet so she refers back to Hurricane Irene and
how the city shut down the subway system and ordered the evacuation of 370,000
people as Hurricane Irene barreled up the Atlantic coast. Hurricane Irene
weakened to a tropical storm so it really did not hit New York City so there
was no subway shut down or evacuation for Hurricane Irene. But Hurricane Sandy
hit New York City hard, there was a subway shut down leaving New Yorkers no way
to transport, there was evacuation and there was no power in some parts of the
city not to mention the flood in some places around the city. If New York took actions
after Hurricane Irene we would have been ready for Hurricane Sandy and many
more to come. New York planers suggested that new constructions and buildings
should be developed risk free for the upcoming climate disasters but no such
actions are imposed. A research group from stuny brook suggested in 2004 of
installing movable barriers during hurricanes would block huge tides from
entering the city, it wasn’t installed because the cost of installing such
barriers could reach nearly $10 billion. There were such excuses like how these
barriers could interfere with water ecosystems. Author tells us that five years
ago 3 ½ inches of rain stopped the subway system for hours leaving 2.5 million
riders no way in or out of the city. Improving our subway the transit agency
spent about $34 million. My question is why do we wait till the disaster and
spend our money fixing, why don’t we just build it climate appropriately in the
first place. It’s interesting how politics plays a role in the readers mind
while reading this article about climate change. Out of the top three comments,
two readers took this article towards politics and how the republic party does
not support climate change and democratic does.
Summarizing graphs from the text
To the
students who are not taking Professor Cooper’s English class based on climate
change, I am Sanjida and I am writing this blog summarizing two graphs from the
book climate change by William Nordhaus. On chapter four page 39, there’s this
graph which is an observatory made by some scientists from the year 1958 in Hawaii;
showing us on the graph how carbon dioxide concentrations rise 25% from
1958-2012. On the graph the X-axis refers to the numbers of years and the Y-axis
refers to carbon dioxide concentrations (parts per million). Again in chapter
four page 46, there’s another graph which is showing us the trend of global
temperature done by three research groups; on the X-axis it refers to the
number of years and the Y-axis shows temperature change from 1900 in Celsius.
Monday, March 10, 2014
My response to Nordhaus's words
In the book
Climate Casino, William Nordhaus gives us an example how we burn fossil fuels
in our daily lives. We might not realize how much carbon dioxide we are putting
in the atmosphere when we are going on a long drive, heating or cooling our
homes or when we are cooking, but think of it as a whole not just you itself.
Nordhaus shows us with an example of his own how 100 pounds is produced for
driving just 50 miles and how a person will not pay attention while driving. But
if everyone around the world produces that 100 pounds of carbon dioxide twice a
week it will make about 30billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to the world’s
atmosphere. I find this very interesting how Nordhaus is telling us how we
produce so much carbon dioxide in our daily lives then he states himself that he
enjoys his lifestyles. We all love our current lifestyle, we get everything
done very easily. Why would we go back to lives of a caveman? And work hard to
get everything, like we don’t complain enough about the easy way out we have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)