Extreme Cities: The Peril and Promise of Urban Life in the Age of Climate Change

For me, this was exceptionally useful. New and deeper insights into what is already happening Full and convincing detail, case studies, but also put into the regional and global context. I have read so much about global indications, melting ice, temperature increasing, more and bigger storms, rains and droughts, desertification... Now I feel I have a clearer and more detailed understanding.

Dawson (English, CUNY; Extinction: A Radical History, 2016) has published and edited numerous books and essays and is a member of Duke University’s Social Text collective, which focuses on issues of gender, sexuality, race and environment. From 2010-2014 he was co-editor of Social Text Online and from 2012-2014 also edited the Journal of Academic Freedom. His current work deals mainly with the impact of radical environmental change and issues of eco-justice, the idea that needed environmental reform cannot occur without equally serious social and political reform. In this present book, he argues forcefully that much of current environmental reform efforts fail to address the problems we face because they assume that growth is the only way to a healthy economy, or, to put it another way, that retreat from endangered environmental zones (low lying coastal areas) is not to be considered. One of his examples is Hurricane Sandy, the deadliest and most destructive hurricane in the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season and the second most expensive in history in terms of the material damage it left in its wake. As to cleanup efforts post-Sandy, much of the money and time spent went to rebuild structures in coastal areas at risk of future destruction. (A note: in 20123, 32 million people worldwide were forced to relocate temporarily or permanently as a result of climate damage. That is not a small number, and subsequent years bode fair to be much worse.) Dawson writes of New Orleans post-Katrina, a city low almost at sea level to begin with, its marshlands in rapid retreat, delta sediment deposit dropping and the sea level rising, salt leaking into the very soil on which the city was built. New Orleans, he posits, is the “New Atlantis” –do what you will to save it, it is likely to be buried by the sea not too far off in our future. Current efforts to prevent or ameliorate future storm damage have been blatantly insufficient, argues Dawson. I have noted Dawson’s observations on these two American cities but his focus is worldwide with examples from all over the globe. He presents a powerful and convincing case that: neoliberalist ideas get in the way of addressing systemic global issues of environmental deterioration; we radically underestimate the projected rise in global water level and still waste our money rebuilding along the coast in places we can’t ultimately protect, using outmoded models that amortize the construction of new high rise buildings and skyscrapers over a single generation (rapid ROI) with no thought for the burden left to our heirs two and three generations on; we initiate reforms piecemeal and timidly. It’s hard not to see it all crashing down on us two or three generations off from now. But politicians and investors don’t think that far off, only in one or at most two decades. The potential for short term profit obviates the need to consider long term risk. I have to add that there is something I do not like –maybe “admire” is a better word-- about this book. The language could be simpler. I’m a former academic myself but I’m uncomfortable with academic jargon and hate academic buzzwords, and Dawson falls back on them all too often in this book. I don’t feel also that Dawson always argues fairly. I think he cooks the books in his favor by the choice of terms, examples, and by shortening time spent on laying out opposing points of view. My model for argument like this is Raul Hillberg’s The Destruction of the European Jewry. Hillberg doesn’t polemicize in this massive, three-volume book. Rather, he presents and he explains. That’s it! The structure is step by step advance –logical and hard to refute—and the tone is matter of fact so as to refute any charge of emotionalism. I would like to see Dawson restructure his argument, presenting along the way the best case he can make for opposing views, so that when he demolishes their arguments (easily done), the presentation of his own case looks irrefutable. I would appreciate coming across fewer value-laden catch phrases: “anticapitalist climate justice,” for instance, seems particularly ill-fitted, not to say vague. It’s a label not a definition or explanation. Reservations or not, this is a book that deserves to be read by all who take these serious issues seriously.

The book highlights the necessity for a just transition in the age of extremes. The vision of neoliberalism has yielded flawed outcomes and an assertive counterbalancing by society and the state might be required.

Even better than Water Will Come! Ashley Dawson is a genius, and her work shows it. Surely a must for the Annotated Bibliography on Construction Ethics I am completing.

A well written book about climate change. I should have bought this book as soon as it came out.

Extreme Cities is oddly a chillingly relevant book for today. With the rise of sea levels occurring daily, more ice from the iceshelfs melting by the minute, and more extreme weather events occurring more frequently, cities must find ways to remain strong and resilient against such forces of nature. Cities have seemingly risen to the call to action and have found ways to adapt to the changing tides, however more could be done. The writer focuses on several locations as examples of extreme cities and their response to the changing climate. Unfortunately, in all cases, cities have continued to be in the rebuild phases. The cities chosen have been affected by flooding conditions (New Orleans, cities in Holland, Jakarta, and even New York City). In domestic cases, cities have simply paid out money to rebuild in the same locations, which often, are places in the flood plain and prone to flood again. Some cities have built floodwalls and other measures to redirect waters, but then offer new developments in this “safe” places. Unfortunately, the writer suggests, this gives people a false sense of safety. The water will rise and in some cases, has risen, over the walls and created devastating and deadly floods. Of course, cities then went and built the walls higher… The writer proposes several immediate solutions for locations in that situation or who may happen to become in that situation. This includes a framework that should be applied more universally. It is but one of the more aggressive approaches suggested for helping cities manage the incoming chaos. What I found likable about the book was the focus on the idea of changing the mindset of the consumer ideology for change to happen. Cities have risen to the challenge of tackling rising CO2 emissions by retrofitting buildings to make them green and switching to natural gas from coal. This is often praised however it can be misleading. For example, New York City touted having decreased emissions by switching energy sources however they simply made it more polluted in the location they get their energy from (see fracking in Pennsylvania). Additionally, retrofitting buildings to be more energy efficient was simply a voluntary suggestion and not a requirement, so by the 2050s only 30% of buildings would be green. Surprisingly, 2% of the buildings in NYC contribute to the majority of the CO2 footprint in the city and those buildings are for the rich and famous (or business buildings for FIRE (finance, investment, real estate). If people were to instead change from a consumer, overconsumption, and get more money type of mindset (the goals of FIRE) then better changes to decreasing CO2 emissions could take place. For example, if people buy and spend less and live in less lofty places, these buildings would no longer necessarily be needed. Other suggestions along these lines seemed to suggest switching from those type of industries and going into other industries that could generate energy and better transportation that would have less of a footprint. For example, investing in high speed rail instead of airplanes, investing in jobs that would put renewable power generation in the hands of the people instead of money hungry corporations, changing the waste system, wetland restoration, tree planting, building in safe zones and not wetlands or flood plains, and more. The book ultimately makes it clear that the only way for change to happen is for a total overhaul of capitalism and neoliberalism. In the battle of neoliberalism which will have unrestricted access to continue to grow economies by absorbing and devouring all of the Earth’s natural products and polluting the Earth and mother nature with its natural mechanisms to restore order, mother nature will win and destroy all if things don’t change. However, the people in power such as the fossil fuel companies would want to continue getting their fuel, companies in the consumer product department would want to keep making products, industrial food companies and construction companies want to keep producing…everyone wants to keep making more to get more in the current mindset. What the book suggests is that a total overhaul is needed, almost going as far as saying a moratorium on this needs to happen. If we are to truly go 100% green energy, which is necessary to prevent apocalyptic destruction of cities, then we need to stop everything and go back to just using what we need. Unfortunately, with the vague proclamation of energy reduction by countries, and limited action by cities with just bandage solutions, this 100% green energy idea seems farfetched and at best a dream. Perhaps, unfortunately, it will only happen when it’s too late. Though the writer does mention that it may end up coming down to the citizens of cities who will rise and demand these changes. It could happen today or it could happen tomorrow but there is hope. With the writer mentioned inequality issues in cities with the poor, the slums, the unemployed, racial and gender based, and those living in polluted areas, it would only be a matter of time before people have enough. Overall it was a thoughtful read and got the mind rolling.

vital topic

I wanted to like this and parts of it were great, but the problem is that most of it is not about climate change and is instead rehashes of things you can find elsewhere. For example, gentrification hurts low and middle income people, and maybe there will be some launching off point that's climate change related, but then there will be a several page digression into rent in Manhattan in the 60s. It's almost more of a sociology book and tons of stuff about social justice and city planning in general but not necssarily in the context of climate change. I came to the book because the marketing appealed and I was looking for engineering and science and how wind and currents and availability of fresh water will change. That's not what it's about. The author is an activist and a professor of English, and I think if you like his other work or like that perspective, then you will like this more. Anyway, most of the book is not about extreme cities of the future. Instead it's about the present. We build up the coast. People with money own that coastal land, and get government to help them build it up. Meanwhile, regular people tend to rent and can't afford the expensive areas and so end up subsidizing the rich. Plus, investments by corporations is a whole other level of waste and siphoning government funds. This book really is about corruption and ignoring science today.