You may or may not be able to link through to this New Yorker article - it's worthwhile, and you can access if you subscribe - but the thing that struck me was the plain statement of something that has been lingering in my mind, mostly unspoken and unformed, for a long time:
Even if we managed to stop increasing global carbon emissions tomorrow, we would probably experience several centuries of additional warming, rising sea levels, and more frequent dangerous weather events. (bold and italics mine)
And that's where I almost stopped reading because I couldn't quite absorb this statement of what had been lurking at the edges of my mind.
SEVERAL. CENTURIES.
Of more frequent dangerous weather events.
The article gives several examples of physical and structural adaptation to help deal with extreme weather events - like barriers and "lifeline systems" (infrastructure for immediate aftermath of disasters). But it also touches on the differences of impact where there was a strong social network in place. Where people knew each other, or there were community organizations that bring people into contact with one another. These types of 'systems' - where people will even simply look out for one another - significantly contribute to the resilience of a community after a disaster.
I've heard several stories from people who lived through Hurricane Sandy on the East Coast (and seen a lot of the news footage as well), and the striking thing is the humanity in the stories. People helped each other - and people were and are grateful for the care, the concern, the help. That's what made a difference.
I'm not sure why I felt compelled to write this post. I guess there was something that shifted for me. In the face of a literally altered reality for the foreseeable future - where we simply accept things like extreme weather, and perhaps, shootings that are becoming a monthly occurance - will we adapt? I like to think that we will. And I have to think that we have to.
Recent Comments