CLIMATE DISASTERS ARE A OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RICH AND CATASTROPHIC FOR THE POOR.
In late October 2012, the approach of Hurricane Sandy up the US Eastern Seaboard coincided with a spring tide, propelling a surge of storm water that crashed into New York City and its surrounds, causing more than $70bn (£56bn) in damages, mostly from flooding. Since that day, a billion-dollar, federally funded programme has been enacted to fortify nine miles of the Rockaway peninsula’s Atlantic-facing beach. The boardwalk was rebuilt in concrete and now doubles as flood protection; quarry stone groins were put in to break the waves; and – allowing for nesting of small, plump piping plover, a federally protected species – sand dunes were dug out and underpinned with a stone-filled trench and concrete wall going down 16 feet. Meanwhile, a city programme to build a barrier wall along the east side of Manhattan led to a dispute over storm protection designs for the historic East River Park, pitting community activists against political representatives whose areas encompassed public housing. There is a growing backlash against “climate gentrification” – an effect caused when uninsured or under-insured homeowners lose their properties to a climate disaster, and the sites are sold and rebuilt for new, wealthier homeowners. Critics, including New York’s Environmental Defense Fund, say the cost analysis systems used by state and federal governments are skewed toward protecting property, not maximising protection for the largest number of people, rich or poor. One derided billion-dollar plan to protect part of lower Manhattan would provide direct flood protection to just 62 condominium and rental buildings, 21 commercial properties and 19 public buildings. People in Bangladesh would be very happy if they could move into the Plovers nest which really highlights the massive inequality in this world especially the wealthy northern hemisphere where the buck calls the shots.
