Re-Mapping the Line
December 4, 2007 on 3:27 pm | In Uncategorized |So you might know that I am putting lots of images and stories up on the maps from the project - you can access them all through the timeline. Click on the dates of the weekend, then click on “detailed map” on the right under the map. There you can see images and where they were taken and read more about the experiences along the way.
In addition to that, I am interested in working on maps that explore the areas around the 10′ above sea level line. Looking at the obvious things, like ethnicity, age, income, number of people in household, language spoken. But also other things like the infrastructure and what area it services (so who would be affected if the power station in Dumbo was flooded). Things like distance from transportation in case of evacuation. Immigration status (are the coastal dwellers new or old New Yorkers). Types of industry. I am sure there is more to investigate, but this will give me a good start.
If you, or anyone you know, would be interested in working on this part of the project. I am interested in working with cartographers to generate the first version of the maps and artists to interpret the data. Email me through the contact page.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
It seems to me that your project continues to show a complete misunderstanding of the global warming situation. You do understand that if the UN Panel for Climate Change is predicting a rise of sealevel in the single inches in the next 100 years, and you are drawing a line at 10 feet (120 inches), you’re just making things up as you go along. How about you draw a line of say 10 inches? Or is 10 feet simply a more scary and convincing figure, because I can’t see how you came up with that otherwise. Now, is the DUMBO power station within that 10 inch perimeter? No it is not. But, do you care that it is not and will not be flooded due to global warming?
Consider this, we’ve seen a sealevel rise in the last 100 years because of huge cars without any emission controls, coal plants galore all over the world, etc. Given that, have you found any area in Brooklyn that is flooded at all due to the global warming that has occurred and the sea level rise that has happened from all those glaciers you’ve seen on TV falling into the ocean?
You continue to pollute our land with your bleached chalk, buy and throw around large plastic cones that are made from petroleum, and are then disposed as garbage into the landfills by the city, and generally waste resources associated with this project.
Again, how about helping the environment rather than hurting the environment?
Comment by Bruder — January 4, 2008 #
Hi Bruder,
While I appreciate your continued concern, I do wish that you would do more of your own research regarding your comments (the information is all available on the website).
As regards the line - it (as appears on http://www.highwaterline.org/science.html) is a flood zone line, not a sea level rise line. The 10′ above is a commonly used marker regarding storm surge. Currently it is at what is considered the “100 year flood zone.” It is the line that the NYC Office of Emergency Management uses as their flood zone A (maps available here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/ready/hurricane_guide.shtml), which indicates a flood from “any hurricane” hitting NYC. From my research it is the zone from a Category 3 storm on a westward path.
What does all this have to do with climate change? As the oceans both warm and rise we are likely to see more frequent stronger storms in the area. I worked with scientists at Goddard Institute for Space Studies (discussions with Cynthia Rosenzweig, Radley Horton and briefly, Vivien Gornitz, reports from James Hansen, Stephen Couch and Ellen Hartig) regarding the science of the project. The 10′ line (which I drew) then becomes a more frequent flood zone: “once in every 43 years by the 2020s, once in every 19 years by the 2050s, and once in 4 years by the 2080s.” All this information is clearly stated on the website. I chose this line (as opposed to the sea level rise scenarios like those in “Inconvenient Truth,” which involve glacier and polar ice cap melt) because I in fact wanted science that was quite certain (the glacier melt is still uncertain regards time) and also something which could happen within a future that we could comprehend.
As for the materials, the chalk is not bleached, I explained in a response to one of your previous posts (http://www.highwaterline.org/wordpress/2007/10/02/brace-yourself/) - it is a base material which in fact reduces the acidity of the soil, groundwater and surrounding bodies of water - it is a net positive (although I put down very little of it), and the beacons will not be added to the trash heap (thank you very much) but have been sold and gifted to friends who are using them in a variety of ways.
I am sorry that you don’t see the work that I am doing as of any benefit. Perhaps if you spent some time with me out in the world talking to the people that I talked to, you would feel differently.
I hope you continue to consider all of the actions we each take in our day to day lives to impact the world - and stay tuned for more projects which involve environmental education, art and action.
Comment by admin — January 6, 2008 #
Well then, the storm surge problem existed before and will exist the same again after global warming. Its a problem not for humans but for God to control. You must think otherwise. Secondly, the correlation between global warming and increased intensity and frequency of storms has yet to be shown. As a matter of fact, the last two years have been excellent examples of that.
So it looks like you’re warning us of something that happens naturally about every fifty years. Perhaps you can convince people in San Francisco to not stomp their feet on the ground so much for fear of triggering an earthquake a few minutes earlier than it would come anyways.
This is all absurd, and you’re just capitalizing on the latest hysteria to promote your art career, which will continue wasting more resources, creating more pollution, all while telling others how THEY should change their life.
The fact is that you pollute our Earth more than me, and if you consider me as you want others to consider you, my motivation here is to encourage you to pollute less, preserve more, and be less of a nuissance on the environment.
But that don’t matter, because its more fun and prestige to be an artist rather than a waste disposal specialist that actually does the good work.
Regarding spraying bass bleach around the parks in the form of dry powder, you’re terribly mistaken that its “safe” and “good”. It is neither, and quite dangerous. Combining it with the already high concentrations of particulate matter in the city only aggravates the situation further. Frankly you should probably go through some pollution control agency to be able to exhaust so much into the air.
Again, I implore you to change your methods and refocus your goals towards real benefits.
Comment by Bruder — January 6, 2008 #
I still don’t think you are paying much attention to the science. The science behind the anthropogenic influence on the climate change and the increase in storm severity and frequency is in fact very hard science. It was even reported in the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers, which, as many climatologists have stated is a very weak position on climate change.
It is clear at this point that you are just looking to attack the work that I am doing, which I have very patiently and openly continued to discuss with you. I did not do the project looking for fame, fun or prestige. I did the project because I was very committed and interested in the goals and experience of the project. I can continue to spend time explaining the same points over and over to you or spend time working on my next project - which is a green roof project (is that more up your alley?) and continuing to live my life in a positive and low impact manner.
Comment by admin — January 7, 2008 #
What’s strange is that you consider me asking you to turn down your pollution so aggravating, while in fact that seems to be your profession. You yourself are not open to criticism while you’re involved in what is a political campaign to “raise awareness”.
Had you been an actual artist, rather than an activist, I’d have no complaints. But you are in the business of changing how people live, so perhaps of the hundreds of people you meet everyday one can be yourself who gets warned of her destructive activities.
But again, I fear that your polluting activities will not prevent you from continuing your political activities, so I’ll go back to trying to be a productive member of his community who does not spray industrial powdered bleach around for the kids, and dogs, to breathe into their lungs.
Terribly sorry, but you behave like a zealot that disregards others around that might get hurt by your activities.
Comment by Bruder — January 9, 2008 #