New York is not prepared for climate change due to the fact that we weren't even prepared for Hurricane Sandy. If New York was really prepared we wouldn't have huge destruction in New York and we wouldn't be struggling to find money to fix the devastating events that occurred. Accurate preparation would have been proof to the people of New York that we are safe from any kind of disaster such as Hurricane Sandy.
In the article Douglas Hill mentions that we do "lack a sense of urgency about this" (Navarro). And i completely agree with this statement for the fact that instead of ignoring the possibilities of natural disasters, city officials should have been more open minded so in that way they would have been able to prep for anything and everything. New York is "moving too slowly to address the potential for flooding that could paralyze transportation, cripple the low-lying financial district and temporarily drive hundreds of thousands of people from their homes" (Navarro).
Hi Tiffany, I love that you have a great sense of whats going on in the article, however, I believe that your points could have been a little stronger. You used several different quotes from the article but you have not used correct citation. Quotes are taking up a large chunk of your second paragraph, and I believe that you, (as well as I), thought that the article was only 1 page. (I didnt notice the other pages till weeks later while we were in class).
ReplyDeleteWe BOTH (lol), should read the rest of the article, and work on this blog some more. You need some more details as well as evidence and ideas as to how New York City should prepare for climate change. Summarize what Navarro is saying as well as INTERPRET what Douglas Hill is saying. What does he mean? How exactly does the connection between lack of preparation in NYC relate to what happened during Sandy?