Opposing Opinions With Similar Fates:
Climate Change As Seen in New York City
Humanity is selfish. When looking at our own future, we often forget to observe, and very less care, about the changes occurring around us. Wrapped up in our lives, we find it hard to realize the invisible effects of our egocentric nature. People might hear about melting icebergs on the radio, all while driving their gas-guzzling car down the freeway and drinking coffee from a plastic cup. Yet they may not realize that they too, are part of the problem. Wouter Botzen, the author of “Political Affiliation Affects Adaptation to Climate Risks: Evidence from New York City” states that, “Political ideology reflects shared principles, beliefs, and values, a lens through which people view and react to the world around them”. If humans were truly able to look upon themselves, they might discover something quite unnerving. The leader of the most powerful nation on earth recently tweeted, “It’s freezing and snowing in New York -- we need global warming!” (Trump). We might soon be headed in the wrong direction, and that’s underwater.
Introduction to Climate Change, Political Ideologies, and Population Opinion
By 2050, an estimated 3.7 million U.S. residents’ homes in “2,150 coastal areas could be battered by damaging floods caused by global warming-induced storm surges” (Jacobson). As sea levels begin to rise due to climbing temperatures, waterfront areas will be obliterated by flooding, while ecosystems will slowly diminish as temperatures skyrocket. In metropolitan areas such as New York City, “the economic engine [of the city] will sputter. Rents and property values will fall, eviscerating the tax base” (Goodell). If I were to ask a variety of people why our future looks so perilous, I would receive an array of answers. What precisely is climate change, and what does this tentative transformation mean for humanity? By definition, climate change is “a long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature” (Dictionary.com). However, as President Trump states, “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” In other words, it appears that the United States is very divided on this subject. The disunion of opinion regarding this issue is very concerning, for few seem to understand the actual implications of global warming. Matthew Nisbet, an author with profound knowledge on this subject, reports that “more than two-thirds of Americans still remain relatively ambivalent about the importance and urgency of climate change,” and that “between these proportionally small segments, research shows a socially diverse and mostly ambivalent public” (Nisbet). Nisbet’s findings, while alarming, were proven correct with the recent election. Our president calls the most internationally involved issue a “hoax” created by the Chinese, and that is not something to take lightly. Many would be surprised to see Trump’s lack of attention to this pressing matter, for even this self-made billionaire cannot prevent the ocean waters from rushing through his famous tower in New York. All-too strangely, however, we hear so little about global warming. Coral Davenport, a writer for the New York Times, observes that he has “vowed to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency ‘in almost every form’” and to “‘cancel’ last year’s Paris climate agreement.’” While Trump has begun to demolish the progressions that Obama made, he is rapidly destroying the future that his predecessors were trying to save. His power has given him the legislation to disarm a majority of Obama’s policies, which thereby negatively affects the country’s global footprint. Nevertheless, the public’s perception of climate change is primarily influenced by the media, most of which is inaccurate. Nisbet comments that “climate change has historically been either narrowly defined in news coverage as a looming and impending environmental problem with disastrous consequences and/or as a matter of holding industry accountable.” In the scheme of things, who is really to blame for the widespread denial of this conundrum? While biased media is certainly somewhat responsible, it seems that our political leaders have the greatest influence on the population’s opinions of global warming and natural disasters. For all one knows, the true reason, indeed, could be us. Our overall approach to this issue as a population is incredibly diverse. As a result of our conflicting political ideologies, New York City has, and will suffer a terrible fate from both natural disasters and sea level rise. Perhaps it is most crucial that we understand our political perceptions of climate change so that we can be better prepared for what the future holds. In a country more divided than ever, a solution sounds too good to be true, for as long as our president denies the veracity of what lies ahead, the fear of what is to come will forever overshadow our genuine beliefs.
General Democratic View on Climate Change
While many factors contribute to the widespread denial of climate change, if we focus on politics, we begin to see surprising revelations. Between Democratic and Republican parties, few common beliefs about this matter are shared. In general, Democrats are more accepting of this concept and tend to believe the science behind global warming. According to Melanie Mason for the Los Angeles Times, “Democrats describe climate change as a ‘real and urgent threat,’” and they call for setting a price on greenhouse gas emissions.” It seems that this party has a higher level of dedication to derailing the consequences of climate change, while also preserving America’s unrefined resources. In doing so, they “[ensure] the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations” (Democrats.org). Under Obama’s administration, the use of solar power in the States increased by nearly twenty times, and use of wind-powered electricity tripled (Democrats.org). In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency pledged to begin regulating “the carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants,” which are the greatest, most concentrated source of emissions in the United States. If this plan follows suit, carbon pollution rates are expected to decrease by 30% in the next fifteen years (Democrats.org). In other words, the Democratic party has taken precautions, not limited to these, that have proved their dedication to saving the future. Following Trump’s election, this party has continued to persevere in preserving Obama’s accomplishments. In a great effort to protect the planet, they have “committed to curbing the effects of climate change, protecting America’s natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations” (Democrats.org). For this party, the future looks more promising, for most believe in saving what we have lies in finding a sustainable support system for humanity. With that said, even the Democratic Party's’ opinions cannot solely reverse the effects of carbon pollution. While they can raise awareness and make considerable changes, Democrats can only solve half of the issue.
General Republican View on Climate Change
Much unlike Democrats, Republicans tend to have very different beliefs on climate change. As Nisbet observes, “Over the past decade the difference between self-identifying Democrats and Republicans’ views on the reality of climate change has widened to a 30 to 50 percent gap” (Nisbet). That gap alone is enough to offset anything the Democrats are attempting. While Republicans accept the “idea” and understand the “significance of global warming and the importance of action” the party is generally divided on the weight of human activity on the impact of “onslaught climate change” (“Home,” 2016). Unlike the Democrats, Republicans do not see this issue as a huge security threat to the United States. They have repealed several of the EPA’s commitments, and harshly disapproved of the Paris agreement. In the Supreme Court, Republicans have vowed to do away with the Paris Agreement entirely, but have not succeeded in doing so yet. It seems their worry about conserving national parks and natural resources is much greater than that of their concern for the environment. Coal is described as a “clean” energy source, which, needless to say, offends several environmentalists. If Republicans’ opinions could be summed up in one sentence, Melanie Mason perfectly describes their views, “Environmental problems are best solved with ‘incentives for human ingenuity … not through top-down, command-and-control regulations’” (Mason). It’s almost as if the earth is a business deal, and climate change is a [Republican] stock market crash. Democrats and Republicans have refused to come to an agreement on this matter, and without some sort of correspondence, we are headed nowhere fast. This topic is not something that we can afford to disagree on, for the next big disaster will not wait for our understanding of one another's political ideologies.
The Consequences of Opposing Political Opinions, As Seen in Hurricane Sandy and Irene
The implications of these opposing views come into play when we look at natural disasters. One might ask what politics have to do with a hurricane, for not many would make a logical connection between the two. As Wouter Botzen declares, “The way a person perceives climate change can influence how one interprets extreme weather events”. In 2011 and 2012, both Hurricane Irene and Sandy had detrimental effects on the Apple. The high levels of disaster occurred mainly as a result of political division. In addition, blatant “underestimation” of the risks associated with floods, and the presumption that post-catastrophe government relief will be provided could also be a factor. When we observe those affected by Irene and Sandy, we see a large gap between the equipped and the contrived. Democrats’ recognition of the hazards affiliated with inundation is “significantly higher than Republicans’” (Nisbet), which means that their chance of investing in flood defense is more probable. Republicans were largely unprepared for the fiasco the city experienced, because they had no concern for the implications that follow natural disasters, “so as to minimize the need for government regulation and other actions designed to prevent and manage these risks” (Nisbet). While these figures may not seem significant, they completely envelope the essence of political divide. The connection between political affiliation tells us much about how we are influenced by our perception of catastrophes. As stated by constitutional hypothesis, “controversies over risk are viewed as struggles over [political party]) interests” (Wildavsky and Dake 1990, Nisbet). These views can tell us why there is a reduced worry about climate change and flood risk amidst non-Democrats. At the end of the day, our opposing political opinions all contribute to a similar fate: cataclysmic disasters and heightened risks of global warming.
How the Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and Irene Spells Out the Future for New York City
Without preparation for fiascos in the future, the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and Irene spells out ghastly times ahead for New York City. Jeff Goodell, the author of “Can New York Be Saved in the Era of Global Warming?”, writes, “[Hurricane Sandy] did not just reveal how vulnerable New York is to a powerful storm, but it also gave a preview of what the city faces over the next century, when sea levels are projected to rise five, six, seven feet or more.” Our lack of knowledge and general conflict of opinion on climate change means something for the mega metropolis — measures to prevent such calamity from occurring must be taken immediately. $60 billion was spent in rebuilding efforts following Sandy, yet much of New York’s infrastructure is still at great risk (Goodell). Located on an estuary, the city is already extremely susceptible to flooding and sea level rise. Much of the waterfront is occupied by industrial companies, most of which contain toxic materials. Even worse, these establishments are neighbored by poorer communities and underground infrastructure such as subways, tunnels, and electrical systems. Lower elevation areas such Brooklyn, Queens, and Lower Manhattan face the greatest peril, for climbing sea levels will cause the economic engine of the city to drown in an inevitable defeat. Many will not realize the jeopardy of their beliefs before it's too late, for as long as we cannot come to an agreement, New York City nears closer to the sea as each day passes. The point is, in all verity, that we are the creator of our eventual demise. Time after time, we have refused to accept the consequences of our clashing views, and it would be genuinely regrettable to let this exceptional city go down as a result of our inability to see the obvious truth.
Preventing Disaster in the Future
To prevent such disaster from occurring, extreme measures would have to be taken. The East Coast Resiliency Project, designed by a Danish architectural firm called the Bjarke Ingels Group, and unofficially named the “Big U,” is a project designed to hinder the effects of sea level rise. This plan is an “undulating 10-foot-high steel-and-concrete-reinforced berm that will run about two miles along the riverfront [lower Manhattan]. It’s the first part of a bigger barrier system…” (Goodell). Similar to the East Side of the High Line, the “Big U” will overlaid by trees and grass in several areas, with bike paths and benches to attract pedestrian use. Costing nearly $3 billion, this barrier could eventually extend “from 42nd Street in the east to 57th Street on the west” (Condliffe) -- only if the funds necessary to construct this wall can be raked together. Yet again, however, politics have interfered with this project. Goodell states that “wall building is politically fraught: You can’t wall off the city’s entire 520-mile coastline, so how do you decide who gets to live behind the wall and who doesn’t?” On the surface, the “Big U” seems like the solution, but the unavoidable aspect of inequality serves as a major problem. The main purpose of the divider would to be protect Wall Street, while significantly costing other areas, such Brooklyn and Queens, which were particularly affected by Sandy. Even then, the barrier would protect the city only from “a one-in-100-year flood with 30 inches of contingency built in for sea-level rise” (Condliffe), which is unlikely to serve as a long-term resolution. Another potential suitor, named the Blue Dunes concept, is less realistic, but another possibility. With “a 40-mile chain of islands from New Jersey to Long Island,” this proposal would diminish the power of “freak” waves, helping to reduce of impact of hurricanes like Sandy (Condliffe). Other, smaller solutions include “entirely redesigning streets and overhauling subterranean transport and utilities infrastructure,” which could be too complicated to legislate (Condliffe). However, any possible solution halts when the reality of the situation is revealed. Until we can agree on what climate change really is, we cannot take any steps towards progress. It seems that educating city residents on the dangers they will soon face, rather than leaving biased media to do the job, would be in everyone’s best interests.
Conclusion
As we continue down this path of disagreement on the issue of climate change, the future is beginning to look less appealing. Rising sea levels will flood countless coastlines, leaving millions without a home. Of all cities, New York is the last that should be exposed to the brutality of human opinion. A mixing pot of cultures, a place of endless achievements and history, this metropolis is one unlike any other in the world. The planet on which we stand, at the very least, deserves something from us. It deserves a chance to persevere in the face of challenges, to become great when greatness is achieved, to evolve just as we have. If somehow we are able to reverse the currently occurring effects, the time ahead might look a less calamitous, and a little more tenantable. Jeff Goodell argues that “the city has brains and money and attitude - New York is not to go down without a fight.” It’s time that we put our opinions aside and see the reality of the situation: temperatures are rising. Because of our inability to free ourselves of our political burdens, we have buried the planet in an inescapable demise. It’s only fair that we try to look beyond our lives, and see the genuine future.
Introduction to Climate Change, Political Ideologies, and Population Opinion
By 2050, an estimated 3.7 million U.S. residents’ homes in “2,150 coastal areas could be battered by damaging floods caused by global warming-induced storm surges” (Jacobson). As sea levels begin to rise due to climbing temperatures, waterfront areas will be obliterated by flooding, while ecosystems will slowly diminish as temperatures skyrocket. In metropolitan areas such as New York City, “the economic engine [of the city] will sputter. Rents and property values will fall, eviscerating the tax base” (Goodell). If I were to ask a variety of people why our future looks so perilous, I would receive an array of answers. What precisely is climate change, and what does this tentative transformation mean for humanity? By definition, climate change is “a long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature” (Dictionary.com). However, as President Trump states, “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” In other words, it appears that the United States is very divided on this subject. The disunion of opinion regarding this issue is very concerning, for few seem to understand the actual implications of global warming. Matthew Nisbet, an author with profound knowledge on this subject, reports that “more than two-thirds of Americans still remain relatively ambivalent about the importance and urgency of climate change,” and that “between these proportionally small segments, research shows a socially diverse and mostly ambivalent public” (Nisbet). Nisbet’s findings, while alarming, were proven correct with the recent election. Our president calls the most internationally involved issue a “hoax” created by the Chinese, and that is not something to take lightly. Many would be surprised to see Trump’s lack of attention to this pressing matter, for even this self-made billionaire cannot prevent the ocean waters from rushing through his famous tower in New York. All-too strangely, however, we hear so little about global warming. Coral Davenport, a writer for the New York Times, observes that he has “vowed to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency ‘in almost every form’” and to “‘cancel’ last year’s Paris climate agreement.’” While Trump has begun to demolish the progressions that Obama made, he is rapidly destroying the future that his predecessors were trying to save. His power has given him the legislation to disarm a majority of Obama’s policies, which thereby negatively affects the country’s global footprint. Nevertheless, the public’s perception of climate change is primarily influenced by the media, most of which is inaccurate. Nisbet comments that “climate change has historically been either narrowly defined in news coverage as a looming and impending environmental problem with disastrous consequences and/or as a matter of holding industry accountable.” In the scheme of things, who is really to blame for the widespread denial of this conundrum? While biased media is certainly somewhat responsible, it seems that our political leaders have the greatest influence on the population’s opinions of global warming and natural disasters. For all one knows, the true reason, indeed, could be us. Our overall approach to this issue as a population is incredibly diverse. As a result of our conflicting political ideologies, New York City has, and will suffer a terrible fate from both natural disasters and sea level rise. Perhaps it is most crucial that we understand our political perceptions of climate change so that we can be better prepared for what the future holds. In a country more divided than ever, a solution sounds too good to be true, for as long as our president denies the veracity of what lies ahead, the fear of what is to come will forever overshadow our genuine beliefs.
General Democratic View on Climate Change
While many factors contribute to the widespread denial of climate change, if we focus on politics, we begin to see surprising revelations. Between Democratic and Republican parties, few common beliefs about this matter are shared. In general, Democrats are more accepting of this concept and tend to believe the science behind global warming. According to Melanie Mason for the Los Angeles Times, “Democrats describe climate change as a ‘real and urgent threat,’” and they call for setting a price on greenhouse gas emissions.” It seems that this party has a higher level of dedication to derailing the consequences of climate change, while also preserving America’s unrefined resources. In doing so, they “[ensure] the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations” (Democrats.org). Under Obama’s administration, the use of solar power in the States increased by nearly twenty times, and use of wind-powered electricity tripled (Democrats.org). In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency pledged to begin regulating “the carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants,” which are the greatest, most concentrated source of emissions in the United States. If this plan follows suit, carbon pollution rates are expected to decrease by 30% in the next fifteen years (Democrats.org). In other words, the Democratic party has taken precautions, not limited to these, that have proved their dedication to saving the future. Following Trump’s election, this party has continued to persevere in preserving Obama’s accomplishments. In a great effort to protect the planet, they have “committed to curbing the effects of climate change, protecting America’s natural resources, and ensuring the quality of our air, water, and land for current and future generations” (Democrats.org). For this party, the future looks more promising, for most believe in saving what we have lies in finding a sustainable support system for humanity. With that said, even the Democratic Party's’ opinions cannot solely reverse the effects of carbon pollution. While they can raise awareness and make considerable changes, Democrats can only solve half of the issue.
General Republican View on Climate Change
Much unlike Democrats, Republicans tend to have very different beliefs on climate change. As Nisbet observes, “Over the past decade the difference between self-identifying Democrats and Republicans’ views on the reality of climate change has widened to a 30 to 50 percent gap” (Nisbet). That gap alone is enough to offset anything the Democrats are attempting. While Republicans accept the “idea” and understand the “significance of global warming and the importance of action” the party is generally divided on the weight of human activity on the impact of “onslaught climate change” (“Home,” 2016). Unlike the Democrats, Republicans do not see this issue as a huge security threat to the United States. They have repealed several of the EPA’s commitments, and harshly disapproved of the Paris agreement. In the Supreme Court, Republicans have vowed to do away with the Paris Agreement entirely, but have not succeeded in doing so yet. It seems their worry about conserving national parks and natural resources is much greater than that of their concern for the environment. Coal is described as a “clean” energy source, which, needless to say, offends several environmentalists. If Republicans’ opinions could be summed up in one sentence, Melanie Mason perfectly describes their views, “Environmental problems are best solved with ‘incentives for human ingenuity … not through top-down, command-and-control regulations’” (Mason). It’s almost as if the earth is a business deal, and climate change is a [Republican] stock market crash. Democrats and Republicans have refused to come to an agreement on this matter, and without some sort of correspondence, we are headed nowhere fast. This topic is not something that we can afford to disagree on, for the next big disaster will not wait for our understanding of one another's political ideologies.
The Consequences of Opposing Political Opinions, As Seen in Hurricane Sandy and Irene
The implications of these opposing views come into play when we look at natural disasters. One might ask what politics have to do with a hurricane, for not many would make a logical connection between the two. As Wouter Botzen declares, “The way a person perceives climate change can influence how one interprets extreme weather events”. In 2011 and 2012, both Hurricane Irene and Sandy had detrimental effects on the Apple. The high levels of disaster occurred mainly as a result of political division. In addition, blatant “underestimation” of the risks associated with floods, and the presumption that post-catastrophe government relief will be provided could also be a factor. When we observe those affected by Irene and Sandy, we see a large gap between the equipped and the contrived. Democrats’ recognition of the hazards affiliated with inundation is “significantly higher than Republicans’” (Nisbet), which means that their chance of investing in flood defense is more probable. Republicans were largely unprepared for the fiasco the city experienced, because they had no concern for the implications that follow natural disasters, “so as to minimize the need for government regulation and other actions designed to prevent and manage these risks” (Nisbet). While these figures may not seem significant, they completely envelope the essence of political divide. The connection between political affiliation tells us much about how we are influenced by our perception of catastrophes. As stated by constitutional hypothesis, “controversies over risk are viewed as struggles over [political party]) interests” (Wildavsky and Dake 1990, Nisbet). These views can tell us why there is a reduced worry about climate change and flood risk amidst non-Democrats. At the end of the day, our opposing political opinions all contribute to a similar fate: cataclysmic disasters and heightened risks of global warming.
How the Aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and Irene Spells Out the Future for New York City
Without preparation for fiascos in the future, the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy and Irene spells out ghastly times ahead for New York City. Jeff Goodell, the author of “Can New York Be Saved in the Era of Global Warming?”, writes, “[Hurricane Sandy] did not just reveal how vulnerable New York is to a powerful storm, but it also gave a preview of what the city faces over the next century, when sea levels are projected to rise five, six, seven feet or more.” Our lack of knowledge and general conflict of opinion on climate change means something for the mega metropolis — measures to prevent such calamity from occurring must be taken immediately. $60 billion was spent in rebuilding efforts following Sandy, yet much of New York’s infrastructure is still at great risk (Goodell). Located on an estuary, the city is already extremely susceptible to flooding and sea level rise. Much of the waterfront is occupied by industrial companies, most of which contain toxic materials. Even worse, these establishments are neighbored by poorer communities and underground infrastructure such as subways, tunnels, and electrical systems. Lower elevation areas such Brooklyn, Queens, and Lower Manhattan face the greatest peril, for climbing sea levels will cause the economic engine of the city to drown in an inevitable defeat. Many will not realize the jeopardy of their beliefs before it's too late, for as long as we cannot come to an agreement, New York City nears closer to the sea as each day passes. The point is, in all verity, that we are the creator of our eventual demise. Time after time, we have refused to accept the consequences of our clashing views, and it would be genuinely regrettable to let this exceptional city go down as a result of our inability to see the obvious truth.
Preventing Disaster in the Future
To prevent such disaster from occurring, extreme measures would have to be taken. The East Coast Resiliency Project, designed by a Danish architectural firm called the Bjarke Ingels Group, and unofficially named the “Big U,” is a project designed to hinder the effects of sea level rise. This plan is an “undulating 10-foot-high steel-and-concrete-reinforced berm that will run about two miles along the riverfront [lower Manhattan]. It’s the first part of a bigger barrier system…” (Goodell). Similar to the East Side of the High Line, the “Big U” will overlaid by trees and grass in several areas, with bike paths and benches to attract pedestrian use. Costing nearly $3 billion, this barrier could eventually extend “from 42nd Street in the east to 57th Street on the west” (Condliffe) -- only if the funds necessary to construct this wall can be raked together. Yet again, however, politics have interfered with this project. Goodell states that “wall building is politically fraught: You can’t wall off the city’s entire 520-mile coastline, so how do you decide who gets to live behind the wall and who doesn’t?” On the surface, the “Big U” seems like the solution, but the unavoidable aspect of inequality serves as a major problem. The main purpose of the divider would to be protect Wall Street, while significantly costing other areas, such Brooklyn and Queens, which were particularly affected by Sandy. Even then, the barrier would protect the city only from “a one-in-100-year flood with 30 inches of contingency built in for sea-level rise” (Condliffe), which is unlikely to serve as a long-term resolution. Another potential suitor, named the Blue Dunes concept, is less realistic, but another possibility. With “a 40-mile chain of islands from New Jersey to Long Island,” this proposal would diminish the power of “freak” waves, helping to reduce of impact of hurricanes like Sandy (Condliffe). Other, smaller solutions include “entirely redesigning streets and overhauling subterranean transport and utilities infrastructure,” which could be too complicated to legislate (Condliffe). However, any possible solution halts when the reality of the situation is revealed. Until we can agree on what climate change really is, we cannot take any steps towards progress. It seems that educating city residents on the dangers they will soon face, rather than leaving biased media to do the job, would be in everyone’s best interests.
Conclusion
As we continue down this path of disagreement on the issue of climate change, the future is beginning to look less appealing. Rising sea levels will flood countless coastlines, leaving millions without a home. Of all cities, New York is the last that should be exposed to the brutality of human opinion. A mixing pot of cultures, a place of endless achievements and history, this metropolis is one unlike any other in the world. The planet on which we stand, at the very least, deserves something from us. It deserves a chance to persevere in the face of challenges, to become great when greatness is achieved, to evolve just as we have. If somehow we are able to reverse the currently occurring effects, the time ahead might look a less calamitous, and a little more tenantable. Jeff Goodell argues that “the city has brains and money and attitude - New York is not to go down without a fight.” It’s time that we put our opinions aside and see the reality of the situation: temperatures are rising. Because of our inability to free ourselves of our political burdens, we have buried the planet in an inescapable demise. It’s only fair that we try to look beyond our lives, and see the genuine future.
Works Cited
Botzen, W. J. Wouter. "Political Affiliation Affects Adaptation to Climate Risks: Evidence from
New York City." SpringerLink. Springer Netherlands, 2 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Condliffe, Jamie. “New York City is planning a $3 billion wall to save it from sea level
rise.” Business Insider. Business Insider, 10 July 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Davenport, Coral. "Donald Trump Could Put Climate Change on Course for 'Danger Zone'." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
"Democrats.org." Democrats.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Funk, Cary, and Brian Kennedy. "The Politics of Climate." Pew Research Center: Internet,
Science & Tech. N.p., 4 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Goodell, Jeff. "Can New York Be Saved in the Era of Global Warming?" Rolling Stone. Rolling
Stone, 5 July 2016. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.
Jacobson, Rebecca. “Will Your City Be Underwater? There’s a Map for That.” PBS. Public
Broadcasting Service, 17 July 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Mason, Melanie. “How the Democratic and Republican party platforms stack up on climate
change, Iran and more key issues.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 27 July 2016.
Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
“MIT Technology Review.” MIT Technology Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Nisbet, Matthew C. "Public Opinion and Political Participation in the Climate Change Debate."
Big Think. N.p., 2015. Web. 23 Feb. 2017.
RepublicanViews.org. “Home.” Republican Views. N.p., 5 Mar. 2016. Web. 23 Mar.
2017.
Botzen, W. J. Wouter. "Political Affiliation Affects Adaptation to Climate Risks: Evidence from
New York City." SpringerLink. Springer Netherlands, 2 Aug. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Condliffe, Jamie. “New York City is planning a $3 billion wall to save it from sea level
rise.” Business Insider. Business Insider, 10 July 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Davenport, Coral. "Donald Trump Could Put Climate Change on Course for 'Danger Zone'." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Nov. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
"Democrats.org." Democrats.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Funk, Cary, and Brian Kennedy. "The Politics of Climate." Pew Research Center: Internet,
Science & Tech. N.p., 4 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Goodell, Jeff. "Can New York Be Saved in the Era of Global Warming?" Rolling Stone. Rolling
Stone, 5 July 2016. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.
Jacobson, Rebecca. “Will Your City Be Underwater? There’s a Map for That.” PBS. Public
Broadcasting Service, 17 July 2014. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Mason, Melanie. “How the Democratic and Republican party platforms stack up on climate
change, Iran and more key issues.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 27 July 2016.
Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
“MIT Technology Review.” MIT Technology Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2017.
Nisbet, Matthew C. "Public Opinion and Political Participation in the Climate Change Debate."
Big Think. N.p., 2015. Web. 23 Feb. 2017.
RepublicanViews.org. “Home.” Republican Views. N.p., 5 Mar. 2016. Web. 23 Mar.
2017.