Saturday, June 16, 2007

our world

Today's NY Times column by Timothy Egan, which I'm printing here in in its entirety for those of you without access to Times Select, raises a number of interesting questions.

1) How far are we willing to go to control nature and force it to submit to our desires?

2) How long will it take until nature reminds us of her presence?

3) I've never been to Phoenix; I've heard many good things about it and can understand why people are moving there. But how long can this go on?

--------
(By the way, I do recommend Times Select ... it gives you access to the most interesting articles and information, in my opinion)

The First Domed City
by Timothy Egan; June 16, 2007

Every week, more than 2,000 people move to the Valley of Sun, to a metro area nearly as big in size as the state of New Jersey. They come from Pittsburgh, from Buffalo, from Cleveland, from Fargo — from yesterday to tomorrow.

A city equal to Rochester plants itself here every two years. And what they find is a compelling urban experiment: nearly four million people trying to live in the Sonoran Desert, and live with what they had at home — golf courses, lakes, perennial green. But they also learn that summer is winter, in the sense that Phoenicians stay indoors this time of year, hunkered inside a climate-controlled world, and plan their extended midday excursions like an astronaut going for a space walk. In the stillness of late-afternoon, you wonder: where is everybody?

Phoenix, even more than the other desert metropolis of Las Vegas, is the new American city. People come here because nobody has a past, and because houses are still cheap and because when the snow reached the roofline they finally said: That’s it! I’ve had it.

But what if this place — so new the Bubble Wrap is barely off the red-tiled roofs of neighborhoods named for whatever they displaced — became uninhabitable? What if the climate models that predict the American West heating up faster than any other part of the country proved all too accurate?

If you live here, you know what it means when the sun becomes an enemy. On Thursday, it was 110 degrees. Yesterday, same thing. Too hot to leave a dog or a child in a car without risking their lives. Your skin stings. You feel your brain swelling while waiting for the air-conditioning when you get in the oven of a parked car.

About 800 people will be hospitalized, on average, for heat-related maladies in the coming months, and some will die, mostly the very young and the very old.

As heat waves go, this week’s mercury-topper is nothing special. It’s been 121 degrees — the all-time high. But if you look at the trends and the long-term predictions by the United Nations climate panel, you wonder how our signature New City will adapt. The average temperature of Phoenix has risen five degrees since the 1960s, according to the National Weather Service. Five of the warmest years ever recorded have occurred since 2000.

A few years ago, The Arizona Republic predicted that average temperatures in Phoenix might rise by 15 to 20 degrees over a generation, due to something called the urban heat island effect. The more parking lots and Dilbert-filled buildings are slapped over the desert floor, the more heat stays trapped in the valley. On top of that is climate change.

“All of the models say in the next 50 years this place is really going to heat up,” said Robert Balling, a climatologist at Arizona State University.

Outside the city, the forests of Arizona are dying, stressed by drought and rising temperatures. A fire that burned an area the size of metro Phoenix five years ago is seen as a terrifying precursor. What scientists have found is that there’s a threshold at which the forest ecosystem collapses. They’ve looked at droughts going back to the time of the Hohokam, who built canals here, and cannot find anything like the present crash.

Is there a similar point at which the city becomes imperiled? The skeptics say: No, we can engineer our way around it. Look at the ballpark where the Diamondbacks play baseball: It has a retractable roof, which is closed while the stadium is cooled by industrial-strength air-conditioning and then opened in the evening.

Or behold the great veins of the Central Arizona Project, bringing water from the Colorado River to fountains in Scottsdale. The fast-evaporating water courses through the city as it bakes, making it livable.

To their credit, residents are using less water, deploying the sun to power air-conditioning, putting in desert landscaping — cacti and stones, not bluegrass and ponds. I do not doubt that innovation will continue to make it easier to defy the heat. But it’s one thing to bring runoff from the Rocky Mountains to the desert floor. It’s another to bring alpine air to streets and parks and backyards, unless you put a dome over the whole city.

Wallace Stegner always said it was his hope that the West could build cities to match the setting. He never predicted that the setting would be the problem.

Timothy Egan, a former Seattle correspondent for The Times and the author of “The Worst Hard Time,” is a guest columnist.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I had never been to Phoenix either and had reason to be there 3 times last spring.....wretchedly ugly....horribly hot even in February....but the desert...oh my, let it grow on you a day or two and it is spectacular...and the people are easy, comfortable....too many malls and highways...but people will keep on stretching into that massive desert....but my favorite were the Arizona mountains...green & lush, and yet rising up from the desert...a very holy kind of place....hope you are having fun!!!

Unknown said...

Yes, everyone spread the word that it's ugly there. Everyone would be wise to remain fimrly entrenched in their snowed in, decaying, rusted, overpopulated Northeastern cities where they should convince themselves they're much better off.

Seriously, everyone can stop moving to my hometown now. (Especially if you're all going to go to Phoenix sporting events, comming to collectively root for the visiting East teams. But that's another topic.) PHX if 'full' at this point. I'm not even sure there's enough water for the I-10 rest stops on the way to California, much less all the golf courses they've brazenly put in every zoning grid. So I'm afraid those interested will just have to start a whole new city somewhere else that's clean, modern, friendly, has an incredible economy, and is free of all major natural disasters...well, unless you count the summer heat, but that's only if you're not used to it. To the uninitiated, 80% humidity in Ohio on an 85-degree day can seem every bit as brutal as any 113-degree Summer day in Arizona. But I wholeheartedly sympathize with those who are intimidated: best you just stay away.

Angela said...

RP, thanks for your comment. I can imagine the desert is a holy place. I remember camping out in Big Bend National Park; not DESERT in quite the same way, but glorious, especially in the crispness of the early morning, before the real heat of the day.

Angela said...

Sean, I don't think it was the point of the article at all that Phoenix is ugly; it was just a question of how a place that was not naturally inclined to be a huge metropolis could be engineered in such a way to support a city that is not only huge, but growing at a very fast pace. My sister has visited Scotsdale on several occasions, and she loves it ... or said to me that she loved it. And the pictures were gorgeous. But there are a LOT of people living out there, and each person requires a LOT of water. Water that is not naturally or easily available.

It's not just Phoenix. We humans are spreading out into all kinds of areas that are not really meant to be inhabited, sometimes with dire consequences, like huge mudslides and floods that result from rivers losing their natural floodplains. Just look at New Orleans; if people had stuck to building on high ground, it wouldn't have been such a disaster. But they kept spreading out and out, and "reclaiming" wetlands as land for construction of ever more suburbs. So now we have a human disaster, but also a natural one. The wetlands are dying out, and the shore is receding back towards the city. Who knows how many animal and plant species have been affected.

I think it's great that people in Phoenix are using less water and are planting xeroscape yards (based on the article...); my question is really the general "how far can we go", to what extent can our technology help us overcome nature. Really, I think we will have to get to a point where we're working with the environment; building homes that are powered using the natural resources of the area (wind and sun in Phoenix, I would think. Or maybe just the sun). And perhaps there are new ways to get water out of the atmosphere. I don't know. But for all of these things there will have to be a cost/benefit analysis.

Unknown said...

I understand the point of the article, and I think the given concerns of the potential future state are legitimate. That's why I'm all too willing to endorse a tongue-in-cheek reinforcement of negative perspectives while they're still somewhat unfounded. Phoenix IS on the fast-track to becomming a Los Angeles-without-the-ocean and that terrifies me. I've lived in LA for 3 years, too, and I couldn't imagine such traffic and pollution without a coast and the breeze of the ocean to cool the city and move the air above it.
Is the idyllic Phoenix of my youth, the one that motivated so many people to move out there, now gone forever, replaced by alredy-congested freeways and urban sprawl and residential developments that go beyond the mountains in the distance in every direction, with water running out and heat going up? For the sake of slavaging what's left, or at least slowing the ever-growing population overload as much as possible, my answer to all curious readers is an emphatic 'yes!'