Tag Archives: singapore

Coronavirus has city dwellers heading for the hills. Here’s why they should stay put.

In the beginning of March, as the first cases of COVID-19 were reported in New York City, Anne Hilton Purvis, a realtor with Coldwell Banker Village Green — a real estate company that serves Upstate New York — started getting calls from clients. They were looking for “a lot of short-term rentals — three months, six months, some people wanted to buy something cash,” she said. At first, Purvis, who is a family friend of this reporter, advised prospective buyers to reach out to Airbnb hosts who might be offering up longer stints instead of daily or weekly listings.

But as the state’s outbreak worsened, and the governor imposed restrictions culminating in a shutdown of the state’s nonessential businesses, she realized it was time to stop showing houses to urbanites trying to flee the big city. “In the short term, if we can follow the rules and stay where we are, that might make this thing not so prevalent,” she said.

Cities across the United States, and New York City especially, are dealing with explosive virus transmission rates and dwindling hospital resources. It makes sense that city dwellers are itching to flee urban areas: Density, as the New York Times recently reported, is the Big Apple’s Achilles’ heel in its fight to contain COVID-19. But there are a number of reasons why they should suppress that urge.

The suburbs and rural areas aren’t necessarily safer from coronavirus than cities are. While cities do have higher populations and higher levels of social contact, living in the suburbs or countryside still requires some contact with other people —which provides opportunities for the virus to spread. Epidemiological sparks in cities can migrate to the suburbs and beyond as people move around. So it’s not really a question of if coronavirus will start circulating in earnest in Upstate New York and other rural and suburban areas, but when. Once it does, rural Americans are at a disadvantage — they’re further from hospitals and have fewer medical resources available to them. Not to mention more than one in five older Americans, who are especially susceptible to coronavirus, live in rural areas. If you leave a city for the countryside, you’re putting them at risk.

A pandemic-fueled mass exodus out of cities doesn’t just potentially put a massive strain on suburban and rural resources, it also adds fuel to another looming crisis: climate change. Density is actually good for us when there isn’t a pandemic afoot (aka the vast majority of the time). It allows for robust mass transit networks, efficient housing, bike lanes, and foot traffic. All of that, in turn, is good for mitigating climate change.

It may sound counterintuitive, since cities have historically suffered from dangerous pollution problems, but city dwellers actually have smaller carbon footprints than folks living in rural places. One report found that average emissions in NYC were less than a third of the U.S. average, mostly because New York’s famously cramped apartments use less energy than the large houses enjoyed by other Americans and because New Yorkers use public transportation instead of driving everywhere. A different study found that the average Manhattan household produces 32 metric tons of carbon each year, while households in a nearby suburb produce 72.5 metric tons on average.

If that isn’t evidence enough to convince urbanites to resist the temptation to trade their tiny dwellings for a pastoral lifestyle, they should consider this: Singapore and Hong Kong, denser cities than New York, have been generally successful in containing the coronavirus thanks to early testing, dogged contact tracing, and mass compliance from its citizens. Much of America is under mandatory social distancing measures right now not because cities are inherently bad, but because the federal government handled the outbreak poorly and Americans are loath to give up their personal freedoms.

So if you’re a city dweller who cares about reducing the spread of COVID-19 and slowing down climate change, stay where you are. Purvis knows that’s not an easy pill to swallow. “We’re a country that doesn’t like to follow rules,” she said. “But the only way to make the virus go away and not hit so many people is if we do follow all of the rules.”

Source article: 

Coronavirus has city dwellers heading for the hills. Here’s why they should stay put.

Posted in Accent, alo, Anker, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, PUR, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coronavirus has city dwellers heading for the hills. Here’s why they should stay put.

James Mattis Doesn’t Really Fit In With the Trump Administration

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From our Secretary of Defense earlier this evening:

Oh snap. Do you have any more shade you’d like to throw at your boss?

He seems to have a firm grasp of who he works for, anyway.

Original link:  

James Mattis Doesn’t Really Fit In With the Trump Administration

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on James Mattis Doesn’t Really Fit In With the Trump Administration

American Carrier Still Not Headed For North Korea

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From the Washington Post:

As tensions mounted on the Korean Peninsula, Adm. Harry Harris made a dramatic announcement: An aircraft carrier had been ordered to sail north from Singapore on April 8 toward the Western Pacific. A spokesman for the Pacific Command linked the deployment directly to the “number one threat in the region,” North Korea, and its “reckless, irresponsible and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.”

Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters on April 11 that the Carl Vinson was “on her way up there.” Asked about the deployment in an interview with Fox Business Network that aired April 12, President Trump said: “We are sending an armada, very powerful.” The U.S. media went into overdrive and Fox reported on April 14 that the armada was “steaming” toward North Korea.

Sending a carrier somewhere is a standard way of huffing and puffing without really doing anything of substance. Every president has done it. Trump, however, has brought it to new levels of irrelevant theater. Defense News tells us where the carrier and its strike group were really headed:

Rather, the ships were actually operating several hundred miles south of Singapore, taking part in scheduled exercises with Australian forces in the Indian Ocean. On Saturday — according to photographs released by the U.S. Navy — the carrier passed north through the Sunda Strait, the passage between the Indonesian islands of Sumatra and Java. It’s about 3,500 miles from Korea.

For the geographically challenged among us, here is the Sunda Strait:

As you can see, the Sunda Strait is south of Singapore. North Korea is north of Singapore. In fairness, neither Trump nor the Navy said when the Carl Vinson was going to head north, so technically no one lied here. Our “very powerful” armada will make its way to the Korean Peninsula eventually, but apparently no one’s in any rush.

See original article here: 

American Carrier Still Not Headed For North Korea

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on American Carrier Still Not Headed For North Korea

New Documentary Gives the Facts About Climate Change but Few Solutions

Is it too late to stopclimate change? Almost.

Polar ice caps are melting. The Amazon is being clear cut. Wildlifefrom orangutans to migrating birds are losing their habitat and suffering under the ability to evolve quickly enough to tolerate the hothouse their world has become.

“By the end of this century we could trigger runaway climate change that is … beyond our control,” says Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist and the former Secretary of Energy for the Obama Administration, in the new documentary “Time to Choose.”

Why are we in this predicament? And really, are there any choices we can make at this point to save the planet?

The chief causes of this calamity, narrates actor Oscar Isaac in the film, have to do with what we use for energy, where we live and what we eat:

Burning coal, oil and natural gas emitcarbon dioxide and other pollutants, turningthe atmosphere into a greenhouse that is causing temperatures on Earth to heat up beyond what Naturecan tolerate.
Urban sprawl forces millions of people to live far away from their jobs and the infrastructure they need to go about daily lifecreating more demand for fossil fuels.
Deforestation, primarily to produce soybeans to feed to livestock, is destroying the forests that help moderate climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing sustaining oxygen back into the air.
Industrial agriculture demands land and petrochemical-based fertilizers and insecticides to produce food for the animals we raise on the land we’ve deforested. Talk about a vicious cycle.

Here’s just one of the many startling statistics the film cites to make its point, delivered by sustainable food guru Michael Pollan: “It takes up to ten times more land to feed ourselves with meat than with vegetables.”

In just one state, Mato Grosso, Brazil, over 20,000 square miles have been deforested just to grow soybeans for animal feed. In fact, soybeans are the most prominent driver of deforestation in South America, while 30 percent of Earth’s land is being used to produce livestock which by the way, belch methane gas, another potent contributor to climate change.

That loss of forests has shrunk drinking water supplies in Brazil. Forests both create rain and protect groundwater, so when forests are cut down, precipitation drops drastically and drinkingwater supplies literally evaporate. Footage in “Time to Choose” shows an expanse of cracked land as arid as a desert. The caption on the screen reveals that this wasteland is a reservoir.

Meanwhile, as the southern hemisphere’s forests are chopped downand the planet heats up, frozen water thousands of miles away in the northern hemisphere is equally affected. Greenland’s ice shield is contracting under Earth’s hotter temperatures, raising sea levels as the region’s enormous glaciers literally melt into the oceans surrounding them.

Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen predicts sea levels will rise 23 feet, threatening more than 600 million people living in San Francisco, Istanbul, Mumbai, London, Singapore, Amsterdam, Bangladesh, Miami and many other coastal communities. Meanwhile, extreme temperature shifts are triggering devastating cyclones and hurricanes. Remember SuperstormSandy? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

After persuasively presenting the evidencethatclimate change is happening and why, the film doesn’t make nearly as compelling a case for the choices we can maketo solve the problems. It highlights the need to transition to electric cars and to build more self-contained communities so that people don’t need to drive to jobs or social services, but that’s hardly enough to make a dent in the problem. And besides, how many of us can buy a Tesla?

Michael Pollan reminds viewers that they’ll be healthier as well as shrink their carbon footprint if they eat more plants and less meat. But he doesn’t suggest the best choices to make to get started. The Sierra Club’s Michael Brune, another prominent expertin this film, says that renewable technologies offer a “huge opportunity,” but how is the viewer supposed to take advantage of it?

The “Time to Choose” website could be more helpful by providing specific suggestions to enablethe public take the next step. Its “Paths to Change” section is too vague to get people to actually choose a wind-based provider for their local utility, for example, while the “Resources” section contains promotional material for the film, rather than useful resources to help viewers choose among the generic options provided.

These flaws can be easily fixed by adding links to some of the excellent “how to” information organizations, like Brune’s own Sierra Club offers or how to take a stand in your own community with online petitions, like Care2′s.

Related:
10 Simple Things You Can Do to Save Money & Energy
5 Ways to Make Your Car More Eco-Friendly
Not a Vegetarian Yet? 13 Ways to Get Started

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

View this article:

New Documentary Gives the Facts About Climate Change but Few Solutions

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Documentary Gives the Facts About Climate Change but Few Solutions

The View From the Top

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The down-trodden and marginalized have long been fodder for documentary photo projects. A new photo exhibit curated by Myles Little explores the other side of economic inequality. The photos in 1%: Privilege in a Time of Global Inequality provide a rarified though nuanced glimpse into a world inhabited by a few. The collection of photos, cut from an initial round of 2,000 images, does not just present ostentatiousness but includes subtler signifiers of wealth along with a few quiet glances at poverty.

The collection is currently appearing in galleries in China, Dubai, Nigeria, and other international locations and will be coming to Chicago next spring. A book is being funded on Kickstarter campaign. I spoke with Little, the associate photo editor at Time, about how the exhibit came about and what he hoped it would accomplish.

A man floats in the 57th floor swimming pool of the Singapore’s Marina Bay Sands Hotel Paolo Woods & Gabriele Galimberti/INSTITUTE

Mother Jones: You’ve been working on putting this exhibit together for two years. How did it come about?

Myles Lyttle: I was on vacation in Oaxaca, Mexico, and I introduced myself to a gallerist there named Daniel Brena. We went out for lunch and talked about things that interested us. Out of that conversation came this idea to focus on wealth photographically. Since then, the image choices, organizational framework, and logistics of the show have been my own. But that’s the original seed of the project.

Cheshire, Ohio, 2009 Daniel Shea

MJ: How did you decide on the specific photographers you chose for the exhibit?

ML: It took a lot of work and tons of online research. It really was going down the rabbit hole. I wound up with 2,000 images, a huge variety of aesthetics, moods, and topics within the world of wealth. I wanted the form of the show to mirror its content as far as its spirit. I wanted the show to feel posh, well-crafted, quiet. So I decided to only use medium format photography, which tends to feel a little more considered, a little less spontaneous—maybe a little more stately. I just set these very strict rules whereby I had to cut a lot of strong work.

You could say it’s my response to the famous Edward Steichen exhibit at the MoMA called The Family of Man. It’s this huge, sprawling, very inclusive, democratic, curated show of photos from all over the world that argues, “We’re all in this together,” no matter where you’re from, no matter who you are—rich, poor, old, young. I had tremendous respect for that show and the ambitiousness of it. But I do feel that its thesis is not so accurate, at least these days. I feel that the social fabric is tearing. A quick look at statistics proves this. Do you know the six members of the Walton family who inherited the Wal-Mart fortune? They own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. Given that, it’s very hard to argue that we’re all in one boat together. I think the privileged these days speak a different language, live in different part of the world, play by different rules, have different opportunities and live in a different legal universe than the rest of us.

A 25-year-old British man undergoes surgery to reduce the size of his nose Zed Nelson

MJ: What kind of response you hope to generate, especially given that most people who go to photo galleries and exhibits tend to be at least upper middle class or people of wealth?

ML: All I hope to do is start a conversation about fairness, about our priorities in society, what we value, the values that we celebrate. Are we celebrating a segment of the population that we largely don’t understand and have very little chance of joining in our lifetime? Or do we celebrate something else, a segment of the population that works hard and contributes but finds themselves barely holding on or slowly slipping backwards?

Untitled #5, from “Hedge” Nina Berman/NOOR

MJ: Joseph Stieglitz wrote the forward to the book you’re publishing via Kickstarter. How’d you get him on board?

ML: I found his email and I said, “Hi, I’m Myles.” From everything I’ve heard, Dr. Stieglitz is a very warm and gracious person. I haven’t met him in person. He agreed almost immediately. He’s a Nobel Prize-winning inequality expert with a book called The Great Divide. The other essay in the project is written by Geoff Dyer, the British essayist and photography expert. He’s just a marvelous writer.

Paradise Now Nr. 18. 2008 Peter Bialobrzeski

Shanghai Falling (Fuxing Lu Demolition), 2002 Greg Girard

Gated homes in Henderson, Nevada Michael Light, from Lake Las Vegas/Black Mountain, Radius Books

Scrapper, Packard Motor Car Company plant, Detroit, 2009 Andrew Moore, courtesy of the artist and Yancey Richardson Gallery

Legless star cleaner on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, 2005 Juliana Sohn

A street preacher in New York City appeals to Wall Street to repent, 2011 Christopher Anderson/Magnum Photos

Original article – 

The View From the Top

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Paradise, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The View From the Top

Which Tech Companies Are the Greenest?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This article originally appeared in Grist and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

“It’s not easy being green” is a tired cliché, but it’s still particularly true if you are a giant technology company. Even Apple, Facebook, and Google—the best of the bunch, according to a new report from Greenpeace—will have to put in serious additional effort to fully shift to clean energy, especially in terms of lobbying at the state and local level. And the industry laggards, which include Amazon and eBay, have that much further to go.

Here’s how Greenpeace categorizes the tech giants:

Greenpeace

Energy efficiency in traditional appliances keeps improving, but our demand for energy is boosted by new technologies. In particular, companies that manufacture mobile devices and provide services like email, social networking, cloud storage, and streaming video have to contend with constantly escalating demand for data storage.

At the same time, being eco-friendly is important to many of those same companies—or at least important to their public image. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and Microsoft all dropped out of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) last year because of bad publicity around the right-wing corporatist group’s opposition to action on climate change. But tech giants will need to do a lot more than quit dirty lobbying groups, Greenpeace argues; they’ll need to actually get involved in the political sphere on behalf of clean energy solutions.

First, the good news is that some tech companies are making respectable efforts to power their operations through clean energy sources. Google has invested heavily in solar energy, and Apple announced just yesterday that it’s expanding its renewable programs to manufacturing facilities in China. But in many cases, the issue is not whether companies have good intentions but whether clean energy is available to them.

Here are a few key quotes from the Greenpeace report:

Apple continues to lead the charge in powering its corner of the internet with renewable energy even as it continues to rapidly expand. All three of its data center expansions announced in the past year will be powered with renewable energy.
Google continues to match Apple in deploying renewable energy with its expansion in some markets, but its march toward 100 percent renewable energy is increasingly under threat by monopoly utilities for several data centers including those in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Singapore and Taiwan.

And here are some challenges the report lays out:

Amazon’s adoption of a 100 percent renewable energy goal, while potentially significant, lacks basic transparency and, unlike similar commitments from Apple, Facebook or Google, does not yet appear to be guiding Amazon’s investment decisions toward renewable energy and away from coal.
The rapid rise of streaming video is driving significant growth in our online footprint, and in power-hungry data centers and network infrastructure needed to deliver it.
Microsoft has slipped further behind Apple and Google in the race to build a green internet, as its cloud footprint continues to undergo massive growth in an attempt to catch up with Amazon, but has not kept pace with Apple and Google in terms of its supply of renewable electricity.

The underlying problem in many cases is that dirty energy-dependent utility monopolies are providing the electricity for massive, and growing, data centers. If these utilities use coal or natural gas, then by extension so do the tech companies with data centers in their service areas. Meeting data-storage demand without burning more fossil fuels will not be easy. Greenpeace writes:

Big data’s massive growth is expected to continue with the emergence of cheap smartphones: nearly 80 percent of the planet’s adult population will be connected to the internet by 2020, and the total number of devices connected to the internet will be roughly twice the global population by 2018. Internet traffic from mobile devices increased 69 percent in 2014 alone with the rapid increase of video streaming to mobile devices, and mobile traffic will exceed what is delivered over wired connections by 2018.

There are different ways to increase renewable energy supply at data centers. The first, of course, is simply to generate clean power on site with solar panels or wind turbines. Apple is already doing this and other companies are following its lead. But data centers require so much energy that they won’t generally be able to cover most of their needs that way. Other free-market approaches include power purchase agreements, in which the tech companies can make a deal with a clean energy supplier, and “green tariffs,” in which they agree to buy 100 percent clean power from the local utility at a price premium.

To get all their energy from renewables, though, will require tech companies to engage in policy debates. Greenpeace writes:

In many markets, companies’ ability to power with renewable energy will remain severely limited without policy changes. Even in more liberalized markets, it behooves companies to advocate for policies that will green the broader grid, narrowing the ground that they need to cover to power with 100 percent renewable energy. Companies can and must become advocates with the regulators and policymakers who ultimately have the power to change markets in ways that will allow companies to achieve their renewable energy goals. State policymakers covet data center investments, offering significant tax incentives to companies to lure them into their borders. Companies could compel a similar race to the top on renewable energy.

There were a few instances last year of tech companies lobbying for clean energy policies—Google submitted comments in favor of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, and several major tech firms signed the “Corporate Renewable Energy Buyers’ Principles” calling on state regulators and utilities to expand access to renewable energy.

Greenpeace argues that tech companies particularly need to get engaged in state and local politics, forming an effective counterweight to the fossil fuel and right-wing interest group money that has swayed state legislative races and outcomes in recent years. Last year, Facebook and Microsoft submitted comments to the Iowa Utilities Board in favor of distributed electricity generation, but that was a relatively isolated event. That sort of activism needs to become routine.

In North Carolina, for example, Greenpeace notes that it’s illegal to buy renewable energy from a third party instead of buying whatever dirty energy is offered by state monopoly Duke Energy. The same state legislature that is offering tax incentives to attract data centers is considering changing that law. Tech companies should tell North Carolina that doing so is a precondition to getting any data centers located there, Greenpeace argues. Similarly, Virginia has a harsh cap on third-party clean power purchases, and the State Corporation Commission is due to review that rule this year.

You can be sure that the utilities, the Koch brothers, Art Pope, and Americans for Prosperity will be involved in these fights. If clean energy supporters are not, they will be over before they have begun. To really be green, tech companies need to put their muscle into this fight.

More here:

Which Tech Companies Are the Greenest?

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Which Tech Companies Are the Greenest?

These bizarre, beautiful cities of the future are also super green

These bizarre, beautiful cities of the future are also super green

By on 2 Mar 2015commentsShare

I consider myself somewhat of an expert on future cities. When I relocated to Seattle just over a month ago, I moved into an “apodment,” which is basically Bruce Willis’ apartment from The Fifth Element, one of the greatest futuristic sci-fi flicks of all time (opinions are my own). Sure, my place doesn’t have the automatic bed-maker or window access to floating restaurants that Bruce’s did, but it’s roughly the same size, and I think that’s enough for me to maintain the delusion.

So I was stoked to hear about a new exhibit at London’s Royal Institute of British Architects that shows historical depictions of future cities from as far back as 1900. The images are part of an analysis of how our visions of future cities have changed over time and what that means for our actual future cities over the next 50 years. The U.K.’s Government Office of Science commissioned the report as part of its Future of Cities project.

The researchers looked at more than 80 future cities concepts, classifying them into six categories, including “layered” cities that contain multiple physical levels and “informal” cities that cater to nomadic lifestyles. They then analyzed the popularity of these categories over time and, fortunately for the planet, found a recent surge in “ecological” cities that prioritize sustainability:

The Ecological City paradigm evidences increasing concern about the longevity of the city, adaptability to climate change, resource management and resilience of changing social dynamics and populations.

They also found a shift toward “hybrid” or “smart” cities that integrate physical and digital infrastructure.

I guess that means I’m ahead of the curve here in the Emerald City, where we have one of the greenest office buildings in the world and a fancy climate action plan. All I have to do is connect my micro-studio to the Internet of Things, and I’ll be ready for the future!

Here’s a taste of the exhibit:

Forshaw’s London community map (1943): This map shows a proposed restructuring of London after World War II. It attempts to combat urban sprawl, integrate the city’s various ethnicities, and create a generally more egalitarian society. Patrick Abercrombie

Cosmic City (1963): This city features huge towers built to house 5 million residents. Nature fills the spaces between towers.Iannis Xenakis

Autopia Ampere (1978): Using a technology called Biorock that grows and repairs coral, this city would grow from the sea.Newton Fallis

The Berg, Berlin (2009): Replacing the skyscraper as the city’s identity, this 1,000-meter human-made mountain would tower over Berlin. Mila / Jakob Tigges

Cloud Skippers (2009): Helium balloons lift communities above flooded areas and go wherever the jet stream takes them. Studio Lindfors

Red Hook Brooklyn and Governor’s Island (2010): A nonprofit group of “urbaneers” built this model of a sustainable Brooklyn. Terraform 1

Saturation City, Melbourne (2010): This post-sea level rise Melbourne features a dense city of “superblocks.”Bild Architecture

Singapore (2001-2021): This city masterplan was developed using parametric software that evolves urban architecture from the natural landscape.Zaha Hadid Architects

Source:
18 Visions of the City of the Future, From the Past

, Fast Company.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Link:  

These bizarre, beautiful cities of the future are also super green

Posted in alo, Anchor, Down To Earth, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These bizarre, beautiful cities of the future are also super green

Hyper-dysfunctional Congress punts on Sandy relief

Hyper-dysfunctional Congress punts on Sandy relief

Americans like to make fun of Congress. It’s a staple of comedy akin to airline food, a joke that was already old by the time Mark Twain rolled around. But rarely have we had cause to mock our elected leaders as we do now, as the least productive Congress in a generation yawns and shuffles out of Washington. As it goes, it leaves behind a stopgap solution to the fiscal crisis — and a complete abandonment of any aid for those affected by Hurricane Sandy.

Gage SkidmoreJohn Boehner, who is only a leader in a theoretical sense

Late last night (at least, late by Congress’ standards), the House voted to approve the ugly, flawed compromise Vice President Biden worked out with Senate Republicans. The vote happened only after a series of representatives took to the podium to laud the body’s fine work and to celebrate a piece of legislation noteworthy in part for simply extending a number of tax benefits that were due to expire. But perhaps the ugliest moment of the year came after that vote, as members representing areas struck by the storm tried to get the House to hold a promised vote on a relief package. It didn’t. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) pointed at majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.); a “leadership aide” put the blame back on Boehner.

Members from New York and New Jersey were furious. From the Times-Dispatch:

“This is an absolute disgrace and the speaker should hang his head in shame,” said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.

“I’m here tonight saying to myself for the first time that I’m not proud of the decision my team has made,” said Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y. “It is the wrong decision, and I’ m going to be respectful and ask that the speaker reconsider his decision. Because it’s not about politics, it’s about human lives.”

“I truly feel betrayed this evening,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

It’s not hard to guess why the House didn’t want to approve an aid package last night. Even after pushing to slash the president’s $60 billion proposal down to $20 billion, Republicans already being lambasted for raising taxes in the fiscal cliff vote (even though it extended existing low rates for some 99 percent of Americans) were undoubtedly hesitant to be seen as then OKing billions in relief to New York City liberals. Tax and spend.

What makes the House’s inaction even more disconcerting is how it would sliced down the aid package in the first place. Much of the tens of billions House Republicans wanted to excise was funding for preventative measures, research and infrastructure that could make future storms less deadly — and costly. Last month, the New Yorker‘s James Surowiecki explained why that response was all-too-common in American politics:

Politically speaking, it’s always easier to shell out money for a disaster that has already happened, with clearly identifiable victims, than to invest money in protecting against something that may or may not happen in the future. [Economist Andrew Healy and the political scientist Neil Malhotra] found that voters reward politicians for spending money on post-disaster cleanup, but not for investing in disaster prevention, and it’s only natural that politicians respond to this incentive. The federal system complicates matters, too: local governments want decision-making authority, but major disaster-prevention projects are bound to require federal money. And much crucial infrastructure in the U.S. is owned by the private sector, not the government, which makes it harder to do something like bury power lines.

In this week’s issue, the same magazine lays out what’s needed to prepare New York for a similar storm. In “Adaptation” (subscription required), Eric Klinenberg details how Rotterdam and Singapore have invested in flood prevention — and how far behind the United States is. Take our power grid.

After Sandy, there was a five-day blackout in lower Manhattan, because the walls protecting Con Ed’s substation along the East River, at twelve and a half feet above the ground, were eighteen inches too low to stop the storm surge and prevent the consequent equipment explosions. When I asked [geophysicist Klaus] Jacob about this, he threw up his hands in exasperation. “Just put it on a high platform and use more underwater cable,” he said. “We’ve had it available for a long time now. These are just moderate investments, in the millions of dollars. It’s a small price to pay for more resilience.” …

In recent decades, American utility companies have spent relatively little on research and development. One industry report estimates that, in 2009, research-and-development investments made by all U.S. Electrical power utilities amounted to at most $700 million, compared with $6.3 billion by I.B.M. and $9.1 billion by Pfizer. In 2009, however, the Department of Energy issued $3.4 billion in stimulus grants to a hundred smart-grid projects across the United States, including many in areas that are prone to heat waves and hurricanes. The previous year, Hurricane Ike had knocked out power to two million customers in Houston, and full restoration took nearly a month. When the city received $200 million in federal funds to install smart-grid technology, it quickly put crews to work. Nearly all Houston households have been upgraded to the new network, one that should be more reliable when the next storm arrives. … Creating a smarter, more resilient grid for New York will be expensive, but not as expensive as a future filled with recurring outages during ordinary times and long-lasting failures when the weather turns menacing

That’s just the electrical system. Klinenberg also outlines the various ways the transportation system needs to be protected and possible efforts to stem flooding with offshore barriers. What results isn’t a detailed plan to make New York storm-proof; rather, it’s a portrait of a massive, poorly-understood need.

People affected by Sandy — thousands still without homes or electricity, much less heat and running water — desperately need short-term assistance. They need it yesterday, both proverbially and literally. The storm ravished entire economies, from real estate to boat insurers. But the 112th Congress provided not a single dollar to that effort.

John Boehner, hoping to quell the outcry, promises to have a vote on relief by the end of the month. That promise should be considered as trustworthy as the GOP’s earlier promise to hold a vote on a bill last night. But even if the House does approve relief funding, without a huge investment in research and infrastructure, it’s simply an attempt to cure cancer with a Band-aid.

Which wouldn’t result in our mocking Congress. That would be Congress mocking us.

Update: New Jersey Chris Christie aptly summed up the feelings of everyone outside of Capitol Hill.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Cities

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read original article: 

Hyper-dysfunctional Congress punts on Sandy relief

Posted in GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hyper-dysfunctional Congress punts on Sandy relief