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

by Ashley Dawson

A cutting exploration of how cities drive climate change while being on the frontlines of the coming climate crisis

How will climate change affect our lives? Where will its impacts be most deeply felt? Are we doing enough to protect ourselves from the coming chaos? In Extreme Cities, Ashley Dawson argues that cities are ground zero for climate change, contributing the lion’s share of carbon to the atmosphere, while also lying on the frontlines of rising sea levels. Today, the majority of the world’s megacities are located in coastal zones, yet few of them are adequately prepared for the floods that will increasingly menace their shores. Instead, most continue to develop luxury waterfront condos for the elite and industrial facilities for corporations. These not only intensify carbon emissions, but also place coastal residents at greater risk when water levels rise.

In Extreme Cities, Dawson offers an alarming portrait of the future of our cities, describing the efforts of Staten Island, New York, and Shishmareff, Alaska residents to relocate; Holland’s models for defending against the seas; and the development of New York City before and after Hurricane Sandy. Our best hope lies not with fortified sea walls, he argues. Rather, it lies with urban movements already fighting to remake our cities in a more just and equitable way.

As much a harrowing study as a call to arms Extreme Cities is a necessary read for anyone concerned with the threat of global warming, and of the cities of the world.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Urban Planning, Environment, Climate Change, Science, Urbanism

240 pages, Paperback

First published November 1, 2016

About the author

Ashley Dawson is a professor of English at CUNY, New York City. He is the author of Extinction, Mongrel Nation and The Routledge Concise History of Twentieth-Century British Literature, as well as a short story in the anthology Staten Island Noir.

Reviews

[Kaelan Ratcliffe ▪ كايِلان راتكِليف · Rating 4 out of 5]

Climate Apartheid

Well, if you live in New York, then I'd probably get you to recommend the state have copies of this jammed through everyones letter boxes until they all have a copy. I say this mainly because large swathes of this book are dedicated to NYC (specifically post-hurricane Sandy). Yet, Dawson does take the reader to many places around the globe in Extreme Cities, and, despite some moments of lapse in interest from this reader, this is a solid and essential read regarding climate change and cities.

Personally, I see any work on our collective future, and the climate, as essential in any persons book reading. It should transcend topical interest, or genre preference.

Who to read though? I'm still early days into my exploration, and have a fair few titles lined up. So making strong recommendations to well read individuals of this subject is a tricky one. I can, however, say that Dawson offers interesting bait to reel you in. He brings a strong commentary to the table for direct democracy, horizontal organisation and community driven action as to how to tackle the coming climate chaos that coastal cities face. Moreover, he makes the bold claim that we must begin to consider moving people away from coastal areas and stop trying to raise fortifications and barriers against incoming floods. At a minimum, he concedes that we need to look at naturalistic ways to absorb raising sea levels and incoming tides along our cities coasts. Finally, he sheds an important light on how communities hit by environmental disasters are NOT equally affected. It's overwhelmingly poorer communities that are left to rot, while humanitarian aid services - such as those in the case of NYC - are so ineffectual that they eventually need to use data from community driven activist circles with their ear to the ground, to become more effective in their work.*

There's more revealed here in chapters regarding the insanity of the housing market; how real estate ignores immensely dangerous areas for building luxury apartments; refugees and their relationship to the climate; and also how other cities like Jakarta are practically sinking as we speak.

Overall, there's too much here to ignore, and being a city dweller myself - who was just eyeing the Thames river on my way back from Holborn, London - I found Dawson's work here to be very informative, if a little dry in places (hardly a deal breaker).

*There's way more on this that made my blood boil. Including the fact those same humanitarian services wouldn't trade their own data in return so they could be perceived as more in "the know" to potential outside money-givers, therefore increasing their likelihood of receiving grants.

[Radiantflux · Rating 4 out of 5]

4th book for 2020.

Dawson put forwards a blistering progressive analysis of the socio-economic structure of cities, offering a deep dive into how the forces of neoliberalism—especially an increasing addiction by city governments to profits from real estate speculation—are stymieing preparedness to anthropogenic climate change, in particular sea level rise.

While the book provides a global perspective, much of the focus of the book is on New York in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, which while fascinating, may limit its accessibility to non-New-Yorkers, in particular those outside the US.

I found this a dense, depressing, but ultimately worthwhile read. This should appeal to readers who like authors such as David Graeber, Naomi Klein, and Mike Davis.

4-stars.

[Jamie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Professor Dawson discusses the causes of climate change, profiles several vulnerable cities around the world, and provides an in depth discussion of New York City's attempts to prevent future flooding damage in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. He also outlines a potential solution, which can be broken into several steps:

1) Relocate vulnerable communities/neighborhoods to a safe, permanent location. All planning for the relocation should be done in a fully democratic, transparent process involving those relocated.
2) The relocation should be seen as disaster prevention. As such, disaster funding should be allocated to fund the effort in developed countries.
3) The relocation costs in developing countries will be funded by climate reparations. Developing nations became wealthy by adding the majority of anthropogenic carbon to the atmosphere and hence bear responsibility to poorer nations at risk.
4) Countries should nationalize all fossil industries, using revenues to support the transition to renewable energy and efforts to mitigate climate change. The fossil fuel industry should be shut down as quickly as possible.
5) Economies should become largely state run if not entirely communist. This is to reduce unnecessary consumption, energy usage, and carbon emissions while ensuring a just allocation of resources.

The author maintains that we essentially need to upend every existing power structure in the world to confront climate change. He fails to discuss most of the actions that can be taken now, without reorganizing societies across the world, such as carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc. The author mentions some of the success stories only to criticize them as insufficient. Climate change will progress unmitigated if drastic reorganization is a prerequisite.

A large portion of the book is only tangentially related to climate change or cities. The author discusses many familiar progressive talking points in an attempt to show a relation to climate change: malfeasance of the IMF/World Bank, historic marginalization of minorities and the impoverished, the legacy of colonialism, and others. I feel that Professor Dawson placed far too much emphasis on far-left ideology and not enough on practical solutions.

The case studies of several cities around the world were interesting and informative, as was coverage of IPCC's sea level rise being too conservative. I also enjoyed many of the sections about Hurricane Sandy's aftermath, especially coverage of Occupy Sandy. The book is exhaustively researched and engagingly written, but I feel that the scope and focus is skewed. Far left ideology and issues related specifically to New York City and Hurricane Sandy consumed too much of the book, and discussion of science and practical solutions too little. This book is a great piece of far-left boosterism, but falls short in explaining how climate change relates to cities in an objective manner.

[Carlos Martinez · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thought-provoking, radical book about modern urban life, and how its vast inequalities affect - and are affected by - environmental degradation. Touching on a wide range of subject areas, from sociology to landscape architecture, marine biology to political history, the recurring theme here is that the enormous problems we face with climate change cannot be fixed without addressing inequality and building a different type of city: more equal, more democratic, more compact, more efficient, and better integrated with the natural environment.

[Saba Houmani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ok so 😐 this is very good if you’ve never read the books that this book cites heavily. If you’ve read those books then most chapters of this book are still worth reading and have new things to say. It’s very no-nonsense unlike The Uninhabitable Earth. And I guess it’s an essential climate read because of its focus on cities. But it feels like I’ll forget about it in a few weeks and not want to return to it 🤷‍♀️ just lacked something idk

[Martin Empson · Rating 5 out of 5]

"The reality is, as Dawson makes clear, that we need a radical approach to building out cities. Some of this will involve "retreat" - some cities, including large parts of New York are not viable in the new environmental context - though it would be political suicide for politicians to admit it. The capitalist solution - large scale, privatised infrastructure projects will, at best, only hold the waters back for a limited period of time. But simply retreating and building again elsewhere on the same model is not the answer either. Dawson argues that the most resilient places are those that put the needs of people and planet first; through community democracy and economic policies not based on profit. That will require an entirely new approach - one that breaks with the prevailing capitalist system. Luckily as Dawson reminds us, the populations of cities are not passive bystanders - they have always been a key part in revolutionary processes."
Full review: http://resolutereader.blogspot.com/20...

[WR · Rating 2 out of 5]

Was really hoping to get some ideas from what others were doing to cope with climate change. But I found the book more focused on political commentary than actual solutions. And the tone of the reader in the audiobook probably exacerbated that impression. Did not finish.

[Kaleb Wulf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Love it when it's talking about specific programs and efforts in NYC and Amsterdam to beat rising sea levels and environmental decay. Hate it when it's bloviating about communism and the elites.

[Drucilla · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you want to be both angry and scared, read this book. Dawson blisteringly indicts the cities which are in the most danger from climate change who continue to put capitalistic endeavors first at the cost of the most vulnerable communities. I will admit that this book is a little dense and some places are more difficult than others to get through, but it was a fascinating read. The thing about this book, however, is that Dawson doesn't offer up much of a solution. He just says "here's how terrible humans are" but doesn't really put forth his own ideas. Overall, though, it's definitely work reading.

[Andy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even though I read a lot about global warming, the detailed grain of this book continued to create new perspectives on what the future looks like for cities like Miami and others.

[Amy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I will be honest: I read three chapters of this book and I just couldn't take it anymore. So, I decided to stop reading and leave my thought on Extreme Cities here. I don't really feel comfortable reviewing books that I haven't read (or, in this case, haven't completely finished), but I wasn't going to make it to the end without throwing something.

I originally picked up this book because the book jacket led me believe it was about truly unsustainable and/or dangerous land uses (middle eastern cities that are literally built on sand and heavily use air conditioners were specifically referenced), and how we can learn from failed or doomed cities to guide future building and to reinforce existing populations that live or will shortly live in precarious situations. Upon beginning to read, I found that the author and the publisher apparently had two completely different ideas of what the book was going to be about, because text itself was nothing like what the jacket led me to believe. Sometimes hidden gems are discovered this way (a great book just has a bad publisher's summary), but Extreme Cities was NOT one of them.

My takeaways from the book: the author gets very upset about inequality (especially in cities) and - despite his own analyses of the circumstances and inherent suggestions on how to at least mitigate that inequality - insists that cities (ALL cities, from my understanding of his argument) must be abandoned. Cities are hot spots for inequality (no arguments there, although the extent of inequality can be mitigated through reform), contribute the most to climate change in pure numbers (the fact that those pure numbers are spread out over millions of residents, especially in particularly dense urban cores, and results in lower usage per household than in the suburbs or rural areas is, apparently, unimportant), and have a greater vulnerability to sea level rise due to their locations (which in turn are primarily due to the world's historic dependency on the ocean for shipping). It is too much. According to Dawson, they should all go.

I won't argue that Dawson isn't passionate about making sure humanity has a future or that he isn't also passionate about making sure that the future doesn't resemble a dystopian YA novel when we arrive there. It is clear in his writing that both of these things are of extreme importance to him. However, from my understanding of his writing, Dawson is an environmentalist and a naturalist. Cities are bad, and nature is better. That some cities make eponymous targets by which to attack the basic premise of the city is, apparently all the better. But in determinedly viewing all cities from this very narrow viewpoint and painting all cities with the same brush, Dawson misses completely or discounts with only a sentence some of the greatest environmental advantages of cities, especially over the suburbs or rural areas. For example, the fact that city living, especially in dense urban areas like New York City, allow residents to use proportionally less energy and thus contribute less to climate change by the sheer dint of their living arrangements is amazingly encouraging from an environmental standpoint, especially as most of the world's population now lives in cities.

I thought The Green Metropolis by David Owen (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6...) was a much better book. I didn't agree with Owen's every point, but I thought he had a better argument overall. In that, Owen in certainly doing better than Dawson, who I though had some great individual points, but a bad argument overall.

EDIT: I recently finished reading The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World by Jeff Goodell (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...) which aims to address as a similar topic as Extreme Cities, but I think does so in a much better way. If you're looking for a book about the future of humanity and the city (especially the future of humanity, the city, and the reality of water) I would highly recommend The Water Will Come.

[Taru Luojola · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kirjan aihe on erittäin kiinnostava, tärkeä ja ajankohtainen, mutta tämän nimenomaisen teoksen toteutus tökkii vähän liikaa. Ensinnäkin kirjailija ilmoittaa olevansa englannin professori — ei siis esimerkiksi luonnontieteilijä, yhteiskuntatieteilijä tai kaupunkisuunnittelija, vaan kielitieteilijä — eikä mitään muita kirjan alaan liittyviä meriittejä mainita. Tämä näkyy kirjan sisällössä sikäli, että lähteet ovat paikoitellen huteria, esimerkiksi uutistekstejä, joissa asiat esitetään vähän sinne päin, tai sitten kirjailija on lukenut niitä vähän sinne päin. Kirjaa ei siis ihan voi kutsua asiantuntijan laatimaksi tietoteokseksi, vaan enemmänkin poliittiseksi ja poleemiseksi puheenvuoroksi.

Poliittisuutta tästä tosiaan ei puutu. Kirjassa esitellään erilaisia keinoja, joilla eri puolilla maailmaa (mutta ennen kaikkea New Yorkissa, aina vain New Yorkissa) on yritetty hillitä tai suunniteltu hillittävän ilmastonmuutoksen vaikutuksia kaupunkeihin, mutta kirjailijan mielestä suunnilleen kaikki nämä keinot ovat loppujen lopuksi enemmän tai vähemmän huonoja, ja lähes poikkeuksetta syynä on nimenomaan se, että niissä ei puututa lainkaan nykyiseen fossiilisen teollisuuden varaan rakentuneeseen uusliberalistiseen kapitalistiseen tuotantojärjestelmään. Mistä minä toki olen samaa mieltä, mutta hyvänen aika sentään, tämä kirja on kirjoitettu niin puuduttavan toisteisesti ja nihilistisesti, että melkein tekisi mieli äänestää kokoomusta jo pelkästään sen takia, kun tekee mieli sanoutua irti tällaisesta demagogiasta, joka aina osoittautuu vasemmistolaisten perisynniksi. (Heh, ja kirjoittamalla tällaisen arvion syyllistyn siihen itsekin...)

Ja sitä varsinaista sisältöä tässä on lopulta aika ohuesti, koska sivut käytetään toistoon, toistoon ja toistoon. Oikeastaan mitään olennaisesti uutta en tästä kirjasta oppinut, koska samat jutut on tullut luettua erinäisistä uutisartikkeleista ja esseistä vuosien mittaan jo moneen kertaan. Mutta ehkä ensikosketuksena aiheeseen tämä voi toimia käypäsenä tiivistyksenä.

[Darnell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Instead of focusing on potential futures if humanity meets certain (unlikely) goals, this book spends a fair amount of time looking at the obstacles to those goals and goes into some detail about scenarios in the absence of significant change. That's valuable, as I've always found books on global warming seem a bit utopian to me. I didn't find all the book's solutions or analysis convincing, but much of it was both interesting and useful.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

-1 star because he misspelled andy hsiao's name in his acknowledgements

cmon man

[Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Super great and important and topical and incisive and necessary.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thoroughly researched book on 'Extreme Cities' as the primary site of environmental degradation, climate chaos, and inequality.

The book traces the history of development along waterways, exposing the processes of erosion, subsidence, and rising sea levels threatening cities, threats that have been accelerated by human intervention. Dawson explores the myriad ways 'urban elites' have tried and failed to buffer urban development - primarily capital-intensive speculative real estate rather than and often at the expense of Black, Indigenous, and working class residents - against the forces of nature. 'Solution' after solution is presented, dissected, and found wanting - too temporary, too unjust. The chapter on 'Disaster Communism' and the conclusion are where you can expect to find hope and a path forward. Dawson makes the convincing case that for communities in coastal cities facing locked-in sea level rise, relocation is not a matter of if but when and how. Those with an eye to equity should therefore focus their energies on democratically planned relocation as the only truly sustainable strategy for survival in these communities.

[Alexander Tas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A solid book about the perils facing our cities and how we got here as a society. It highlights the plans that have been implemented in cities that have been/will be affected by climate change and rising sea levels. Dawson points out how a lot of these plans are incredibly influence by the real estate speculators instead of the communities that inhabit them, increasing the economic disparity between the elites and the rest of us. It's worth the read regardless of your interest in climate change as we will all be affected (though disproportionately) and Dawson does a really good job of pointing out the current flaws that will hold up real change.

The largest problem I had with the book was there were some sections about engineering that felt pretty heavy and not appropriately explained for laymen, and I have a degree in engineering.

[Emil · Rating 1 out of 5]

Complete drivel. I initially believed this book to be written by an urbanologist, or perhaps an economist or a climatologist. But rather it’s written in the form of a blitheringly ideological, buzzword-laden manifesto that is entirely inactionable. Anything remotely interesting or insightful is ruined wholly by the inescapable French Revolutionary LARPing the author partakes in. Sorely disappointed as I think this could have been an interesting topic if it was explored with even a modicum of patience.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a provocative, informative, and frightening book, but it's also quite sprawling, buzzword-laden, and doesn't really hang together. Additionally, its analysis of organizations the author favors is often insufficiently critical. It's worth reading, especially for a much-needed critique of current neoliberal "green" movements, but expect to be frustrated in places, even if you generally agree with Dawson's arguments.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting book. I went in expecting to just confirm some things I already knew, but I thought the author did a good job forcing a wider view on issues of climate adaptation and resiliency. There's a tunnel vision engineer's view of "I did a good job solving this particular problem" sometimes, it's useful to have reminders that there are larger connections and equity issues at play as well.

[Tuna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extreme Cities is oddly a chillingly relevant book for today. With the rise of sea levels occurring daily, more ice from the ice shelfs 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.

[Mike]

* After Sandy, for days the neighborhood responses and support were all residents could get. Took FEMA days to help.
* Majority of mega cities are in coastal zones, most people live in cities, "heat islands" make cities hotter than other areas. Meta city 10M+ residents.
* How cities spread resources equitably indicate how well they will handle climate crises
* Sao Paulo is in drought despite being next to world's largest river because of deforestation.
* Capitalism's growth mandate is at odds with limited resources of the earth.
* The poor (and typically "minority") areas of the city get hit the hardest.
* Haiti hit harder by Sandy than NYC because it has been punished by world powers since winning its independence following the ideals of French revolution. NGOs and privatized resources / infrastructure do to neo-liberalism. Poverty has been imposed on Haiti.

#1 Capital Sinks
* Financing for moving people to firm ground will not be around in 30 years. Now is the time to make changes.
* Last time carbon ppm air measurements matched today's, sea level was 70 feet higher. And, it will not be gradual change.
* Expert Wandlis believes Miami residents should be relocated and not put in expensive pumps
* Turkey Point Nuclear Power reactor is 25 miles south of Miami on the water and hurricane prone and plans are in place to build more reactors there
* NFIP National Flood Insurance Program insulates bad decisions to develop vulnerable buildings for 50 years and it generally benefits the well offs vacation homes and not poor people's only home
* 65 feet of sea level rise baked in. And, if portions of city go under it affects all of the city. Retreat should be planned. Otherwise, it will be chaotic. Either way, it will happen.
* Capitalism creates excess capital and it naturally pools in cities
* Foreclosures on poor in NYC and then building housing / investments for uber rich is typical. In Dubai and elsewhere, essentially indentured build uber rich housing. The poor put the least carbon up but will pay the most in consequences.
* Free market approach cannot plan / build in anticipation for climate change
* Plan NYC's switch to natural gas infrastructure does lower its carbon output significantly but externalizes costs to where the gas is fracked
* Adaptation more important than carbon reduction in the near term. Plan NYC should have put in parks and not more expensive buildings on the water's edge. Capital sink mindset keeps one from thinking in the longterm.
* NYC de-industrialized away from blue collar working waterfront in favor of white collar office rents and luxurious apartments
* Federal policies encouraged white flight in the 50s and 60s and neglect of black and Puerto Ricans moving to urban areas
* Dirty industry went were property values are lowest (and where minorities lived)
* 40% of Jakarta is below sea level. Building a huge sea wall or Great Garruda (bird god and symbol of Indonesia). Will pay for itself by putting luxury homes on artificial islands. 90% of sea walls failed after tsunami in Japan in 2011. And, GG could trap pollution in water around Jakarta.
* Speculative capital investment is what luxurious housing is designed to attract... not actually deal with climate change.

#2 Environmental Blowback
* Jamaica Bay is 42 square miles of wetland / marsh in NY and is dying
* 17% of NYC inundated during Sandy well past 100 year flood map boundaries. Having its marshland would have protected the city much more than buildings.
* Environmental blowback is when efforts to control nature ironically make it more inhospitable like draining Jamaica Bay in the early 20th century to get rid of mosquitos and then dredged for a working waterfront
* Economic growth was imperative and moral obligation. John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Govt. said you owned title on a land based on labor upon and "improvement" of it.
* Sewage plants on Jamaica Bay leads to algae blooms
* Europeans with set demarcations in their mind of where land is and water is restricted the flow of the Mississippi River in New Orleans which hurt marshland and delta built up around the river for eons. Water rises and levees rise together and then the 1927 flood led to worst environmental disaster in US history that helped start Great Migration
* Govt is essentially gas companies in Louisiana. It's easier to buy politicians than actually fix the problem they caused with their money. Delta is being drowned by sea level rise despite significant restoration funded by BP fund after DeepWater.
* Retreat is inevitable but complicated and expensive

#3 Sea Level Rise
* West Antartica glacier will collapse and East Antartica is going as well due to warm water. Same happening in Greenland. 65M sea level rise after Antartica and Greenland glaciers melt. 99% of glacier ice. These are not in consideration to to SLR models. Several meters in 50 years more accurate likely.
* Hedonistic 1% live in protected areas ruining future of others
* Easy to just be indifferent to climate change as it's overwhelming in nature
* humanity is majority in urban areas but majority of urban dwellers live in squalor and not modern cities
* catastrophic risk too large and unpredictable to insure against and cities are vulnerable to them
* Post 9/11 infrastructure improvements haven't really made citizens safer

* Climate change is "slow violence". Refugees have hard time making legal case to standard of Nazi persecution but they are being displaced and harmed nonetheless.
* Lots of essays like from Al Gore which talk about the scarcity of natural resources leading to mass migrations and people most affected by them as threatening. But, never talks about exploitation by the colonialism that set up these areas for failure and the continuing disinvestment.
* climate change has exceeded ICC projections... therefore the actual shocks (disease, food shortages, migration etc.) are likely to be must worse than their projections
* Capitalism must be brought within control setting demand in line with available resources
* Catastrophic future of report looks at tipping points like the W. Antarctic glacier collapsing. Meta stable climate ends and incomprehensibly unstable climate begins.

*Need wholesale change in markets... they are designed to tinker at the edges and not systemic transformation
* Climate change could lead to revolution.
* Climate crisis communism responds better and more equitably than climate crisis capitalism - Occupy Sandy actually going to hardest hit areas and doing something while govt. agencies lag behind by days and weeks and then don't do things when they are on the scene.
* Mutual aid groups more nimble and effective often coming together in the middle of a crisis. Info Occupy Sandy gathered was used by non-profits to try and justify their work and keep their high paid upper employees high paid rather than using majority of money on the pressing needs right in front of them.
* Capitalism demands use of resources. Planetary balance demands less use of resources. One must change and it's not the laws of nature -- Naomi Klein

* Can't just switch to green energy. Must also change way we live which demands industrial ag etc. Must drop the cold, individualistic, and unfulfilling life of capitalism for one of love, care, and collective effort.

[Baher Soliman · Rating 4 out of 5]

ربما يكون كتاب "المدن المتطرفة: الفوضى المناخية والمستقبل الحضري" مفيد في فهم التغير المناخي في مصر، والقاهرة على وجه التحديد التي أصبحت مثل نار جهنم، ربما نيويورك هي نموذج الكتاب المهيمن، فما بالك بمدينة مثل القاهرة يؤثر فيها الفساد السياسي على التغير المناخي! تكلّم الكتاب عن إقامة سدود أمام الفيضانات، والتكدّس في المدن الساحلية، وبناء العقارات للفقراء في أماكن الخطر= بوصف كل ذلك من عوامل تغيير المناخي، لكن ماذا عن دفن النفايات الذرية للدول الرأسمالية في الدول " الفقيرة أوي" من أجل حفنة من المال تُدفع للأنظمة السياسية الفاسدة! هذا لن يحدث في نيويورك بكل تأكيد، وبالتالي لن تجد طرحه هنا يتناول هذا الأمر، ولكنه للحق يُقال استعمل أطروحة اليسار في نقد الاستعمار والتهميش التاريخي للفقراء بوصفهما من عوامل التغير المناخي، وستتعجب ، فقد تكلّم عن صندوق الخراب الدولي ( صندوق النقد) بوصفه أحد هذه العوامل، لتكتمل منظومة القضاء على الدول النكوبة بالفساد والفقر.

ربما لو أخذت أطروحة الكتاب وطبقتها بعمق على مدينة القاهرة، لقلت هذه المدينة مصيرها أسود بكل تأكيد، وربما أيضًا الإسكندرية التي بفعل التغيير المناخي ربما يختفي منها أجزاء تحت سطح البحر. في كتاب آخر مهم يُكمِل طرح هذا الكتاب بشكل أكثر مأساوية وهو The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World أي " سياتي الماء: ارتفاع البحار، وغرق المدن، وإعادة تشكيل العالم المتحضر" يتكلّم مؤلفه جيف جودل عن صورة مرعبة، انظر إلى هذه الصورة المرعبة التي رسمها جودل :

"سيلاحظ الناس ارتفاع المد والجزر الذي يتدحرج بشكل متكرر أكثر فأكثر. سوف تتجمع المياه لفترة أطول في الشوارع ومواقف السيارات. سوف تتحول الأشجار إلى اللون البني وتموت عندما تمتص الماء المالح. ثم ستضرب عاصفة، وستدفع كمية مذهلة من المياه إلى داخل المدينة. سينتقل بعض الناس إلى أرض مرتفعة. سيتم رفع الطرق. سوف تزدهر الألواح الشمسية على أسطح المنازل. ستظل المنازل المهجورة باقية مثل الأشباح، مملوءة بالقطط الوحشية... وستستمر المياه في التسلل إليها. وسيكون لها لمعان معدني وستكون رائحتها كريهة. سيصاب الأطفال بطفح جلدي وحمى غريبة. المزيد من الناس سوف يغادرون. سوف تنهار الأسوار البحرية. وفي غضون عقود قليلة، سوف تصل الأحياء المنخفضة إلى مستوى الركبة. سوف تنهار المنازل الخشبية لتتحول إلى بحر من زجاجات الصودا، وأباريق منظفات الغسيل، وفرش الأسنان البلاستيكية. سوف تصبح العظام البشرية، التي تطفو من الصناديق، مشهدًا مألوفًا... سوف تميل مباني المكاتب الحديثة وأبراج الشقق السكنية عندما تؤدي المياه المالحة إلى تآكل الأساسات الخرسانية وتآكل العوارض الهيكلية. سوف تدرس الأسماك في الفصول الدراسية. سوف ينمو المحار على أعمدة الإنارة المغمورة. سوف يلوم الزعماء الدينيون الخطاة على غرق المدينة. سيصل الصحفيون على متن طائرات عائمة ويكتبون عن عودة الطبيعة" .

نضيف هذه الصورة لطرح أشلي داوسون في الكتاب الذي نتكلم عنه هنا وهو " المدن المتطرفة" حيث يؤكد أننا نحتاج إلى نهج جذري جديد لبناء المدن . أعتقد لو رأي مجزرة الأشجار في القاهرة ربما يسقط مغشيًا عليه ! . وربما في البلاد المنكوبة يكون مفتاح البحث دائمًا وراء المصائب وتتبع جذورها هو مبدأ " فتّش عن المال". وبالتالي فهذا الكتاب يضع الفساد الرأسمالي وجشع الرأسماليين كأحد أهم عوامل تدمير المناخ . ولكن طالما ظل الرأسماليون في السلطة فإنّ بعض اقتراحات الكتاب ستظل بلا معنى، مثلًا يقترح " نقل المجتمعات/الأحياء الضعيفة إلى موقع آمن ودائم. يجب أن تتم جميع عمليات التخطيط لعملية النقل من خلال عملية ديمقراطية وشفافة بالكامل يشارك فيها الأشخاص الذين تم نقلهم" . ويبدو هذا الاقتراح غير قابل للتطبيق في الشرق الأوسط، حيث لن يهتم أحد ببناء مدن لإنقاذ الفقراء أو المناخ، فقط يتم بناء مدن محصّنة في الصحاري لحماية رجال الأنظمة من غضب الشعوب إذا غضبت، أو كمبوندات باهظة الثمن للأثرياء تعزلهم عن العالم المتوحش الهمجي في المدن القديمة! .

عامة دراسات الحالة التي قدٌمها عن العد��د من المدن " المتطرفة" مثيرة للاهتمام، لكن القارئ العربي عامة وهو يقرأ هذا الكتاب كمن يقرأ كيف يتم قتله ويتم تقديم توصيات لقاتله بإجراء محاولة إنقاذ أخيرة . شئ عبثي ربما. لكن ليس غرض المؤلف العالم الثالث تحديدًا، ربما توصياته لحماية المجتمع تصلح لدول يتم فيها محاسبة مسؤوليها، وتكون فيها حياة الإنسان أهم من الطوب والحجارة.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dawson describes how fast growing cities on the edges of continents are particularly vulnerable to damage and destruction from sea level rise and severe weather, and how the same cities are contributing more and more to the build up of greenhouse gases (which fuel sea level rise and extreme weather) because these cities are the places that the capitalist one-percenters can invest in extravagant real estate schemes that exacerbate the cycle. Extreme cities are also the place where we see the most dramatic split between the ultra-rich elite and the urban poor.

Dawson is courageous enough to use "communism" in a positive context as she writes about how if a Mad Max future is going to be avoided we are going to have to address not only energy and conservation issues but social justice issues, and that the best hope for curbing our carbon frenzy and cutting back our grotesque consumptive madness is by figuring out how to make these Extreme Cities work.

Unfortunately, her blueprint for doing that is pretty blurry. Are the elite one percent going to see that we are all in the same sinking boat, or are they just going to throw the ninety-nine percent overboard in the hope that they can buy their way out of the coming crisis.

Interesting stuff about Hurricane Sandy and rebuilding efforts after.

Ultimately, pretty depressing stuff, though.

[Claudia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite the massive amount of information the author put together, it got a bit repetitive after awhile. And that is unfortunate because there is so much information between the covers.
Most of the world's population is located along the coastline, amidst megacities that are unprepared for the steadily increasing danger from climatic changes. Each chapter visits the city of New York and its boroughs with a specific problem and then off to another city/area with the same or similar situation, the efforts to defend their homes from what is occurring and lastly, a break down how most plans are barely stopgap measures or completely inadequate.
Our current urban existence is on a collision course with changing nature that might only be resolved if we can get our city developers weaned away from those that want to repeat what has already been proven a failure - be it re-building on land already devastated by flooding to building walls and levees against the natural flow of water that eats away at fertile acreage.
The only answer seems to be a change in our outlook as a people...and we may not change quickly enough to prevent massive extinction among our own race.

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an incredibly interesting book that sits somewhere between the more journalistic climate non-fiction, with a very strong academic base. Making both accessible and insightful to those researching in the area, it discusses complex issues in a way that is easy to read.

One of the most interesting concepts in the book is 'Accumulation by adaptation', which i think works nicely with the work of Kasia Paprocki and Camelia Dewan, with relevance also to concepts like 'green grabbing', which James Fairhead and Melissa Leach have written about. I think it is an idea I will be using more in future.

It also contains a very astute description of some of the environmental challenges that are faced in coastal Bangladesh, which is rare as this is often misunderstood, and a subtle but damning critique of the framing of 'climate/environmental refugees' as a concept which is one of the best I have seen.

[Alexis · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a lot of interesting information and case studies here, but Dawson gets too bogged down in Marxist analysis. Capitalism is never irrelevant when discussing climate change, but he has a tendency to go off from the direct topic at hand. At times, it feels less connected to the topic of the book and more to his own personal hobbyhorse, such as his lengthy digression on New York's housing and development plans. It also has the effect of flattening things to fit into his predetermined thesis of anticapitalism. For example, if the New York waterfront had been developed in a better way, there would still have been many more housing units; they would simply not be empty, overpriced condos.

It's a shame because the case studies of what cities actually do, and why they do or don't work, are worth reading, but I wish he'd spent more time on that and less on explaining his own theories of why. He's also particularly reliant on some favorite sources, such as Mike Davis (enough for me to notice it) and I knew I was going to get a lot of Naomi Klein (and I did).

[Jake MacLean · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seemed okay but just too many factual inaccuracies to keep reading. In one paragraph the author quoted that:

A: there were now 60 million displaced people worldwide (in 2014).
B: In 2014 Syria replaced Afghanistan as the country with the most refugees, with 1 in 5 (20%) displaced people worldwide being from that country.
C: That in 2014, there were 4.8 million displaced people from Syria due to the ongoing crisis/ conflict.

These were all written in one paragraph. And simple mental math shows that not all 3 of these thing can be true, (20% of 60 million is 12 million, 4.8 million is 8% of 60 million.), and this is just one example of many in the book that made me put it down halfway.

I liked the premise of the book, and a lot of it was interesting and informative. But I just found too many instances like above when the claims were so disparate and therefore inaccurate to keep reading.

[Casey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audiobook: Did not finish after 59%. Dry as a textbook at times, or a city council meeting. But that's okay. The author had some good ideas and I learned some things.

Most of the focus was on New York City, though other cities were also discussed, such as Miami. His description of Jakarta was interesting and scary. The problem in Jakarta and other cities is not just sea level rise, but also subsidence due, in part, to ground water pumping.

It appears that shoreline defenses, such as barrier walls, will be useless in the long run, and the best solution is to relocate. Not an easy choice for millions of city dwellers. And who will pay?

But developers continue to build luxury beachside condos, even in Miami. And people are buying them! Astonishing!

Despite not finishing, still recommended.

[Jake MacLean · Rating 1 out of 5]

Seemed okay but just too many factual inaccuracies to keep reading. In one paragraph the author quoted that:
A: there were now 60 million displaced people worldwide (in 2014).
B: In 2014 Syria replaced Afghanistan as the country with the most refugees, with 1 in 5 (20%) displaced people worldwide being from that country.
C: That in 2014, there were 4.8 million displaced people from Syria due to the ongoing crisis/ conflict.

These were all written in one paragraph. And simple math shows that not all 3 of these thing can be true, (20% of 60 million is 12 million, 4.8 million is 8% of 60 million.), and this is just one example of many in the book that made me put it down halfway. I liked the premise of the book, and a lot of it was interesting and informative. But I just found too many instances like above when the claims were so disparate and therefore inaccurate to keep reading.