A Sign of Things to Come?
August 21st, 2006

Al Gore warns in his movie An Inconvenient Truth that global warming threatens to leave much of Manhattan underwater. Now bird watcher Ken Emerson is saying that global warming is already causing strange things to happen — like that manatee that people have been seeing around town lately.
One manatee has evidently given up on Florida — where manatees generally summer — to hang out around the yacht clubs in Westchester. Manatees are not native to the area, but scientists have said that it is within the realm of possibility that this one decided to swim here from the south.
The warmer weather in New York probably played into this decision, writes Emerson, and “in this the manatee is not alone. A quarter of a century ago, brown pelicans were as rare in this neck of the woods as, well, wolverines. Now the state bird of Louisiana cruises the coasts of New Jersey and Long Island every summer, skimming over the water in single-file troupes.”
So Manhattan may be underwater eventually, but we may be overrun with strange, tropical animals first.
By Joshua Brustein on August 21, 2006, 4:26 pmIn category: Environment, Gotham City
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us |






August 22nd, 2006 at 7:25 am
The good news is that because NYC residents are more likely to walk or use mass transit, and live in housing units with fewer square feet per person and less exposed surface area per square foot, our energy use per capita is lower than elsewhere. Small spaces mean less stuff purchased and thrown away — making lots of stuff takes energy too. In fact New York State, primarily because of New York City, is 50th of 50 states in energy use per capita.
More can be done. But the decision to live here is, in and of itself, a decision to preserve the environment. A decision to live on the exurban fringe is the opposite.
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:27 am
And by the way, decisions about how much density to allow in NYC have to be made with this in mind. People who are concerned that more housing units will make it too difficult to drive and park really need to think about whether the suburbs are what they really want.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:55 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Littlefield’s comments. Density, in and of itself, is not by definition a “bad” thing. In fact, as has been shown time and again, density is what allows urban areas to minimize their impact on the environment in a variety of ways, especially on a per capita basis. The problem is that this is counterintuitive for most people. Most people have been conditioned to think that someone who is “green” is a person who lives where they cannot hear their neighbor’s dog bark and frequently goes hiking. The reality of the situation is that such a person is very likely to require a car (or even two or three, depending on their household size) and drives their S.U.V. to the trailhead. Okay, maybe they drive a Subaru if they see themselves as being “green”! Yet, in reality, the person who lives in New York City and gets around via the mass transit system (not just for work, but for all sorts of daily activities) is much more likely to have a smaller “carbon footprint”.
I believe it is important that people in our society understand that the technologies which allow cities to exist - such as an electrical grid supplied by power plants with strict emissions controls, or a rapid transit system - are those whose impact on the environment (especially in terms of carbon emissions) are the easiest to control. The efficiency and affordability of these systems also improve as densities increase. Conversely, technologies that help promote exurban sprawl - such as automobiles - are the technologies whose dispersed emissions are the most difficult to control. And it should also be kept in mind that not all suburbs are inherently “bad”. Transit-based suburbs where folks can walk to the grocery store are quite different from auto-centric suburbs where you must cold start the car’s engine just to go get milk. Interestingly, what separates these two types of suburbs is density.
Density can be well-planned and well-designed, and does not need to be viewed negatively. Mr. Littlefield is correct, and people should also keep in mind that affordability and density are related. In addition, people frequently say to me that the “best” walking suburbs or the nicest neighborhoods in the city are simply too expensive. My reply is that the market-based law of supply and demand is absolute: if there were more areas such as these, then their prices would be lower, thus making them all more affordable.
Finally, I must take issue with one element of Mr. Brustein’s initial Wonkster posting. Only in the most extreme “worst-case” global warming scenarios does Manhattan end up “underwater”. And actually, it is only certain low-lying parts of it that are at risk. By stating such an extreme scenario so casually, the people who seek to deny the existence of the problems posed by global warming can label those of us who are trying to reduce carbon emissions as “alarmists”, thus causing delay and inaction in addressing the problem. The real issue here is how to counter the effects of sea level rise that may already be irreversible, especially in terms of storm surges which will likely be more destructive in the future. New York City is part of a wealthy society that can eventually construct the proper sea defenses (dikes, sea walls, etc.) to minimize the most negative impacts of sea level rise. We may eventually be much more of a “New Amsterdam” than we realize! But such negative effects will not be able to be addressed in the poorest nations of the world, where many people live in poverty and in low-lying areas. These are the people who, as usual, will suffer the most. And our inaction will be partly to blame.