Quote Sandwich

I think don't think that New York is prepared for climate change because we still have exposed industry site along the coast. I will be referencing parts of a New York Times article New York Is Lagging as Seas and Risks Rise, Critics Warn by Mireya Navarro. According to Eddie Bautista an executive director of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance,“A lot of attention is devoted to Lower Manhattan, but you forget that you have real industries on the waterfront” elsewhere in the city (Navarro). I agree with Bautista because if city officials are only focusing on specific parts of the city then we are far from being prepared. Our officials first need to realize that climate change effects New York as a whole not just the financial district. If our officials are only going to focus on lower Manhattan then what happens when flooding takes place in the boroughs like the Bronx and Brooklyn? Are the industrial sites on the coast of these boroughs not important? The damage that can be done with these sites are affected by flooding would take the city a while to recover from. 

Response to My peer review

Hey guys its Fatima and I am responding to my peer review session with my fellow classmates Sissell and James for my first essay assignment. 

James and Sissell both liked my thesis statement. James suggested to make my essay more personable as apposed to it sounding like a college essay. While Sissell suggests that I input more facts in my essay. 

I plan on finish my essay from my point of view to make the overall essay more personable. As far as more use of quotations and facts I think I have quoted a sufficient amount in each paragraph or my essay so far.

My main concern with writing this paper is having this essay have a coherent flow, being able to have my ideas connect from paragraph to paragraph.

I think I need help with minimizing my personal opinions and focusing more on facts when writing my papers.

I plan on going to the writing lab to seek their input. I also read over my writing assignment to someone else to see if i get my points across in an effective way

Graph Comparison

Hey readers, my name is Fatima and I will be analyzing two graphs from William Nordhaus's book The Climate Casino for a class assignment.

First we are going analyze Figure 2 (Global CO2 Emission, 1900-2010) location 345 on Kindle, which shows us a trend to which CO2 emissions have grown from 1900 to 2010. This graph informs us that in 1900 we produced 2 billion tons of CO2 which has increased on average of 2.6 % a year, leading us to 40 billion tons in 2010 because of the use of fossil fuels. Why is this important you might ask, its important because the more CO2 we pump into the atmosphere, the more we are pushing climate change. Climate change is having a serious effect on our world today. The climate change is causing but not limited to spiking temperatures, rising sea levels due to melting ice sheets, droughts and storms. If you are like me and enjoy vacationing in places Miami then listen up because what this graph is tell us is that the more CO2 we emit the hotter the earth gets. If we stay on this trend of 2.6% increase of CO2 emissions a year we will not be able to lay on a beach in Miami because it would be uninhabitable due to severely heighten temperatures.

Now we are going to take a look at Figure 10 (Historical Proxy Temperature Estimates For Greenland) location 795 on Kindle, which shows us the temperatures of the ice core samples from Greenland over the last 40,000 years. Based on the information shown in this graph we can say that in the last 7,000 years with the emergence of human civility, the temperatures in Greenland rose due to the use of fossil fuels causing ice cores to melt as opposed to the Greenland completely encased in ice before our inhabitance. We learn that before our use of fossil fuels the temperatures considerably low because how large the ice sheet was. The larger the ice sheet in Greenland was the less heat the earth absorbs to keep itself warm. We can say because of our use of fossil fuels we are causing the ice sheets in Greenland to melt. The more fossil fuels we use the more CO2 we emit into the atmosphere. By the calculations in Figure 10 if we keep producing this much CO2 we will continue to heat the earth we will melt the ice sheet in Greenland entirely.

By analyzing the two graphs I have drawn the conclusion that use of fossil fuels will bring on catastrophic consequences. If we don't change the trend of we are on with carbon emissions increasing 2.6% a year as stated in Figure 2 then we will completely melt the ice sheets which we are on trend to do as stated in Figure 10. Once the ice sheets are melted then there is no ice to reflect the sun's radiation back into space. This would cause the earth to be overheated and inhabitable and complete acidification of our oceans that could cause the destruction of all sea life. This should be cause for concern to everyone because we could possibly end life on earth.

Tweet Tweet Tweet!!!!

Hey guys follow me on Twitter @ClimateC101 talk social, environmental, political and economic change with your girl!!! Till next time :-)

Is New York Flood Proof?

Hey everyone its Fatima and I will be summarizing the New York Times article New York "Is Lagging as Seas and Risks Rise, Critics" Warn by Mireya Navarro for my first class assignment.

Navarro shares the severe effects from climate change like flooding, is having on New York and what our City officials are doing to protect the city. City officials are biased when it comes to what parts of New York are more important and should be safeguarded. According to Eddie Bautista,“a lot of attention is devoted to Lower Manhattan, but you forget that you have real industries on the waterfront elsewhere in the city." We also learned that the outer boroughs such as South Bronx and Sunset Park in Brooklyn have chemical-manufacturing plants, oil-storage sites and garbage-transfer stations that should be first priority because continual storm surges to the area could possibly toxify the water in the near future.While some are battling over part of New York to protect first, others are apprehensive to make immediate changes. Because of the cost and "risks" involved city officials have chosen to pursue a "resilience" strategy that "strengthens" the city from flooding with minimal damage to fix. It seems that officials are not really taking the rising sea levels as seriously as they should. They continue to build on the waterfront and decided to use short turn precautions such as porous riprap rock, soft edge of salt-resistant grass, sidewalk bioswales and vegetative tree pits. Carter H. Strickland, the city’s environmental commissioner says“It’s a series of small interventions that cumulatively, over time, will take us to a more natural system” to deal with climate change". What about transportation, right? The sea levels and flooding effects transportation a great deal. Klaus H. Jacob, a research scientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, informs us that "the storm surge from Irene came, on average, just one foot short of paralyzing transportation into and out of Manhattan". Steps have been taken to help prevent us from flooded subway stations such as increasing the pumping capacities, raising entrances and installing floodgates on stations that need it.There is a way to protect the low laying coasts of the boroughs by installing sea barriers. This is aan option but the officials are at a standstill because of the possible effects they could on the ecosystem and the 10 billion price tag it holds. As a fellow New Yorker I am concerned with our city officials "effort". They seem to be more concerned about what it will cost to safeguard  the city and inhabitants. I think the sea barriers are the best option right now. Though the cost is high, we would provide the protection that is needed for the low lying areas.They could continue to build on the waterfront, subway stations and bridges would sustain minimal damage if any at all but most importantly New Yorkers would feel reassured and safe.


I also want to respond to Jim Gordon's comment located in the Readers Picks section of this online article. Jim states that "one of the most important an effective measures we need to take in order to ensure the health of our infrastructure, health and environment is to rapidly transition to clean and renewable energy. Spending billions of dollars to build sea gates without an Apollo like effort to stem the flow of carbon pollution currently accelerating rising sea levels, warming oceans and more intense an frequent storms is like treating the symptoms without curing the disease." Jim argues that it doesn't make sense to build sea gates before enforcing low-carbon alternatives. He believes that slowing the carbon pollution that is attributing to the increasing sea levels and warming oceans are more important. Jim does make a good point that we should put more focus on carbon pollution, but we are. The city starting moving in the right direction when they started production of electric and natural gas fueled city buses that are currently in use and also the production of CITI bikes and installation of bike lanes all over the city. Though its not much, its a start. I don't agree with Jim's opinion of the sea gates. Hurricane Sandy caused city, business, and residential damage that we are still recovering from. I believe if the sea gates were installed when the suggestion was made, we could have minimized devastation that Sandy caused. I am also inclined to believe that the home and business owners that were gravely effected by this storm would agree with me.

Raising the Cost of Carbon Dioxide

My name is Fatima and I am responding to William Nordhaus's suggestion to raise the cost of carbon dioxide on a global scale from his book Climate Casino on page 10. Raising the price of carbon dioxide has it's pros and cons. 

It is true that we as people need to unite and stop thinking like selfish independent countries. The fact that global warming is a world issue, the world needs to be united in agreement to take the steps to fix it. The decision to raise the cost or carbon dioxide effects all of us, not just our individual countries. We need to be willing to make the necessary adjustments in order to save OUR planet.

On the other hand, the United States of America is already in debt and raising the cost of carbon dioxide would just make matters worst for us financially. The upper class would be the only one would be able to afford to live here. Raising the cost of carbon dioxide would raise the cost of living. Basic necessities like heat and hot water would not be affordable for the average American. While the idea is great, it could possibly bring on the next great depression by putting the majority of US citizens in poverty. In my opinion we need to minimize our debt before we take on a big commitment such as this. The United States of America is just not ready for this change.