Wembley Brook now running freely after remedial works on the Argenta House flood site

Trench works at Argenta House

Asked for an update on works at the Argenta House site, opposite Wembley Park Station, following the floods a spokesperson for the Londonewcastle Latimer joint venture, told Wembley Matters:

Henry Construction – who are no longer on the project – carried out work at our Argenta House site. The local area is an area with known and longstanding issues with flooding. 

 

We are aware of the view that Henry’s temporary works to the nearby brook may have been a contributing factor, alongside exceptionally adverse weather, to the recent floods. After taking back control of the site following Henry’s administration and having received notification from the Environment Agency that remedial works were needed, we removed the temporary work as a precautionary step. We can see the brook is now running freely and we continue to monitor the site.

We remain in regular contact with key stakeholders including the council and the Environment Agency to support ongoing investigations in the wider area following the flooding.

 

 

UPDATE: APPROVED BY BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE! Next to highly polluted road, on a flood plain, no nearby amenities - what's not to like about the Prospect House development?

 

 UPDATE: BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVED THE APPLICATION

 

Councillors on Brent Planning Committee had no questions for Alperton Councillor Anton Georgiou after he gave this presentation on the Prospect House development at tonight's Brent Planning Committee.

I wonder why?

I am here to speak against the application for the development of Prospect House on the border of Alperton ward and on the edges of the North Circular.

 

I will start by re-iterating the palpable local anger at never-ending development in our area. Alperton has experienced more than its fair share of large development in recent years. Schemes that have been completed and those currently at building stage are already causing countless issues for local residents. Whether to do with limited investment in needed infrastructure, traffic congestion, pressures on parking provision.

 

This is not the first time I have said this at Planning Committee, but decisions being taken by this Council are driving people, many who have lived here for most, if not all of their lives, to move away from Brent.

 

I therefore plead with members of the Committee to keep this in mind when making the decision about the application in front of you today.

 

The possible approval of yet another large, unsightly tower block, in this instance 23-storeys high, would continue what seems to be Brent’s principal objective of trying to achieve its housing targets outlined the borough plan. Fitting as many units in as possible, without acknowledging their impact on the wider community.

 

Housing targets are important, particularly targets for the right type of housing.

 

We all recognise that London is experiencing a shortage of genuinely affordable homes for local people and importantly a distinct lack of Council homes for Council tenants. However, are the units being proposed at Prospect House and indeed others already approved in Alperton actually meeting that need? I and many others would argue no.

 

I would like to refer the Committee to the report paper which breaks down the tenure types in the proposed development.

 

Once again, we see a distinct lack of genuinely affordable units and a reliance on Shared Ownership units to beef up the supposed affordable units in the development.

 

A significant percentage of the supposed affordable units are made up of Shared Ownership units. I’m confused at this, as I had thought the Council had previously been quite clear that Shared Ownership is not an affordable housing model, and not something that should be lumped under the umbrella term ‘affordable’.

 

I would refer the Committee to comments made by Senior Council Officers and Councillors on this matter at a Scrutiny meeting in November 2022 and elsewhere.

 

By approving yet another development that incorporates Shared Ownership into the ‘affordable offer’ you will be legitimising this controversial housing model once again and in doing so trap potential shared owners into a housing scheme that will cause years of financial and mental misery.

 

Seeking to develop another large tower block on the edge of one of the busiest, polluted roads in Brent, is alarming and should alarm members of the Committee too.

 

The area around the North Circular is notorious for bad air quality.

 

This issue has become more and more prominent in recent months, given incoming changes to ULEZ. There is universal acceptance that air quality in London is poor. People in London die as a consequence of bad air quality. Therefore, why would this Committee seek to approve the development of dwellings in an unsuitable, polluted area like this?

 

What will the quality of life be for those who might consider living at the Prospect House development. What will the long-term impact on their health be?

 

A lack of required amenities in the vicinity of the proposed development is also a concern and something the current owners of Prospect House have highlighted as a reason for limited appeal from potential tenants. Quite frankly, it is in the middle of nowhere and access to shops and other amenities is very limited.

 

As is access to open green space, which I still believe is very important to enhance the quality of life for those who may choose to live there. A diagram in the plans show some distance would need to be travelled for a potential resident to get to the nearest green space. It is highlighted in the diagram that a child would need to be accompanied by a parent or carer to get to the nearest open space, in this case Heather Park. Will it now be the norm that young people will only have access to local green spaces in exceptional circumstances?

 

For any potential residents with a disability or mobility issues, where would the Committee suggest they do a food shop or pick up prescription medication?

 

Prospect House is also located within Flood Zone 3a and sits between the Grand Union Canal and close to the River Brent. Whilst the Flood Risk Assessment is considered to be acceptable, I continue to have concerns about the potential for flooding, particularly in light of recent major flooding very close to the site in Tokyngton Avenue. In recent weeks this has been flooded three times.

 

There is always a risk of flooding when buildings of this size and scale are built so close to a watercourse, coupled with it being in an area known to be vulnerable to flooding.

 

The fallout from flooding has a major impact on all residents in the area, I can only imagine the huge inconveniences we will have to put up with if indeed flooding occurs at this site in future. Are you confident that enough has been done to mitigate this potential risk?

 

I ask that the Committee reject this application based on all the points raised and in view of the unsuitability of this site for another large housing block.

 

I also request that the Committee take the time to visit Alperton in the near future to understand the concerns residents and I have long raised with you.

 

It is time that this Council pauses and takes stock of the negative impact developments like this one will have and have had in our area. If you do not, you will continue to drive lifelong residents out of their borough.

 

I think I know why...

 

FIRE BRIGADE USE BOATS TO MOVE CAMDEN FLOOD VICTIMS TO SAFETY

 FROM LONDON FIRE BRIGADE

Eight fire engines and around 60 firefighters have been called to flooding on Belsize Road in Camden.

A 42-inch water main has burst, causing flooding to a depth of around 50cm across an area of around 800 metres. This has now been isolated. There is a further 15 inch water main that has burst. Around 100 properties are affected by flood water.

Firefighters and Hazardous Area Response Teams have led around 25 people to safety.

The Brigade's 999 Control Officers have taken 18 calls to the flood.

Station Commander Gary Deacon, who is at the scene, said: "This is a significant flooding that has affected around 100 properties and left thousands without water. Shift water rescue crews used boats to move around 20 people to upper floors of properties. Three adults and a child were evacuated to a place of safe haven.

“A number of residents have decided to remain in their properties and we’re patrolling the affected area to assist any further people who require assistance.

"There are numerous road closures in place and we're asking people to avoid the area where possible.

"The water authority are working to isolate the burst water main and firefighters are expected to remain at the scene throughout the afternoon.

"Crews are using flood barriers and a high volume pumping unit to divert flood water.

"A rest centre has been set up for affected residents at Swiss Cottage Leisure Centre."

The Brigade was called at 0250. Crews from West Hampstead, Kentish Town, Euston, North Kensington and surrounding fire stations are at the scene.

 

 

The River Westbourne, a tale of two boroughs: Kilburn major flood incidents update

 Guest Post by David Walton

Previous posts have discussed the River Westbourne and its tributary the Malvern, which together form the borough boundary between City of Westminster and Brent in Kilburn  and which have a tendency to flood impact lives and homes both sides of this administrative, social and political divide.

 

City of Westminster's Finance, Smart City and City Management Policy Scrutiny Committee 30^th September 2021 published its Lead Local Flood Authority Section 19 Interim Flood Investigation Report findings. LINK This is based on what Westminster knows and disclaims any error in or omission from this report.

 

Report summary

 

The nearest rainfall gauge is at Putney Heath 8.5 km away and so it proved impossible to establish exactly how heavy the rainfall was on 12^th July, but it is estimated by Thames Water that more than the entire month's average rainfall fell in 1 hour*. Local sewers/rivers in this area were unable to cope. In Westminster approximately 230 properties were internal flood impacted with Kilburn Park Road (shared with Brent) needing to be evacuated. Underground lines closed due to flooding as was one primary school, three libraries and three community centres.

 

Thames Water reported that the rainfall on 12^th July was equivalent to a 1 in 300 year event. The second flooding on 25^th July in this same cross borough boundary area (this time a month's rainfall in 2 hours and another 1 in 300 year's event) is now subject to a second separate Section 19 Flood Investigation by the City of Westminster. The report states that the Environment Agency is not the responsible risk management authority for the 12^th July flood event.

 

The River Westbourne is report named as a combined sewer and it is described how in heavy rain it sewage discharges into the River Thames. The Kilburn sewer rivers were likely already at full capacity when heavy rains* started and tried to enter the network. The £22 million Maida Vale Flood Alleviation Defence is meant to deal only with a 1 in 30 year storm event/ not a 1 in 300 year one? The report states that the entire cross borough boundary flood area is Flood Zone 1 having an annual flooding probability of 0.1% from fluvial and tidal sources. There is however High Surface Water Flood Risk throughout this floods prone area.

 

Westminster is in 2021 trialling gully sensors to give real time information on silt level build-up in gullies, the aim being to clean gullies before surface water events. In the flood area these gullies were cleaned within 3 months of the event and were in effective condition for July 12^th event. (For the 25^th event many would have likely had blockages?)

 

Westminster Lead local Flood Authority interim recommendations are for

 

a) an increase in reliable rain gauges on site b) The LLFA to keep better records of past flood events for future reference c) to further optimise drainage maintenance d) wider catchment considerations (South Kilburn destroying all of its natural parkland flood defences) will be investigated by flood responsible agencies where the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee may be involved. e) Thames Water is organising meetings with LLFA's and its own Independent Review and these findings will inform the final S19 report. This process could take 6 months!

 

Thames Water reported that the July 12^th rainfall was more than the drainage "network was ever designed to cope with. To the best of our knowledge, our sewers and pumping stations performed as designed….." No system blockages were found either. The Northwest storm relief sewer was overloaded and a River Thames high tide prevented overflow flaps from opening.

 

"Where there is uncertainty over the cause of the incident and therefore responsibility for it, Thames Water needs to take action to support customers without concerns that in taking action we are wrongly accepting liability."

 

An Independent Flood Review has been commissioned by Thames Water, in a time scale which can meaningfully inform Thames Waters and other parties' plans (such as South Kilburns natural park flood defences all being destroyed upstream). Thames Water also now supports the Mayors 'Grow Back Greener' scheme to make sure that every Londoner lives within 10 minutes of a green space. So, extra funding for South Kilburn Public Open Space and Chippenham Gardens natural flood defence parks major upgrade works?

 

Westminster LLFA is attempting to be open about its struggles with its rivers and vales environment and climate change in this London boundary area and I would now expect Brent to follow this lead and to also seriously engage the issues to proactively protect Kilburn major Town lives and properties from escalating flood risk.

 

David Walton, FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn

 

Thames Water Interim Report on July 12th events   LINK

London Fire Brigade Briefing on 'Major Incident' July 12th LINK

The River Westbourne flood defences, the tale of two boroughs

 An update post by David Walton of FLASK

  

Brent used to have more River Westbourne flood defences but still has some, publicly owned natural parkland flood defences throughout South Kilburn Vale, that were built in the 1950's and 1960's. These flood defences have been incrementally built on since 2000 and the impacts are already being felt.  The new intention is to establish this as a tall building zone as set out in the Brent Local Plan to 2041 which awaits final approval.  Population growth is planned to rise from 6,000 in 2000 to 36,000 by 2041. Brent has no plan to mitigate growing flood risk which is exacerbated yet further by excavating giant underground car parks. A mainline electrified railway luckily severs South Kilburn Vale from the rest of Brent.

 

For its River Westbourne flood defences, the City of Westminster uses complex and expensively engineered solutions built inside its borough boundary, but it also ( cf July 2021 major Incident) clearly relies on Brent playing its full part in the  flood defence of the City of Westminster upstream of the River Westbourne.

 

Westminster has the Carlton Hill natural hill (pending new developments area) which drains down onto the Brent floodplain vale, with Kilburn Park Road on the east bank of the River Westbourne (Westminster) relying on Brent's depleting natural parkland flood defences for safety. Then at the main borough boundary at Shirland Road, Westminster engineered flood defences start and which though of considerable scale failed in July 2021 and will with certainty fail again unless Westminster and agencies look at the bigger River Westbourne flood attenuation cross borough boundary picture. (See key Kilburn Park Road flood defences already removed like the 40 veteran trees roundabout flood defence or the Granville Road park flood defence three-quarters removed).

 

New map fragments recently obtained from Thames Water show how the culvert straightened high speed River Westbourne takes a dramatic giant sweeping curve from Kilburn Park Road into Shirland Road, and at this point (underneath the zebra crossing) also connects to the North West Storm Relief Sewer which heads west down to the River Thames at Hammersmith, while the Mid Level 2 Interceptor Sewer which heads east to Beckon Sewage Works connects to the River Westbourne nearby at the south east end of Shirland Road. Flood protection support is also supplied by two new large flood storage reservoirs underneath Tiverton Gardens and Westbourne Green. Both are rivers connected and were built in 2016 at a cost of £22 million. To quote from this new project’s 2012 description:

 

"The Sewer Flooding History Database (SFHD) lists 105 properties that have a flooding category of either AI or BI; however, it is known that the flooding issues affect many more properties in the area. Optimise (the contractor) are targeted with removing 177 properties from the SFHD flooding register and contracted to remove a minimum of 147 properties.

 

Primarily, the identified flooding areas are located around Formosa Street and Shirland Road. Prior to 2005 the problem was much smaller with far fewer properties affected; however there have been severe flooding events in 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In both areas the flooding occurs incommercial and residential property basements.

 

Having considered a number of options, the preferred option proposed by Optimise is to construct a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in Westbourne Green. From this a 3m dia tunnel will be driven to a 7.5m dia reception shaft in Formosa Street. In conjunction with managing flows at the Kings Scholar’s Pond and at a number of bifurcations in the Formosa Street area this will effectively resolve the flooding issues at Formosa Street. Flows from the shaft in Westbourne Green will be returned to the Ranelagh sewer (River Westbourne) by means of a pumping station with a return pump rate of 400 l/s. The Shirland Road flooding will be resolved by diverting more flow to the Mid-Level 2 sewer and constructing a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in Chippenham Gardens.

 

In order to remove properties from the SFHD it has also to be proven thatthe properties flood due sewer surcharge / local incapacity. This information was collated through existing databases already connected to the properties, and via interviews with current residents in the area. There was an initial reluctance to complete the survey by residents and this was for a number of reasons, including many residents were not living at the properties at the time of the flooding events and property owners do not want their property on a flooding register.  As such, the verified model has and will continue to be used to validate the number of properties that suffer from flooding".

 

The sheer scale of the City of Westminster's engineered flood defences that are place and   being rapidly extended  indicate that the wild River Westbourne is a major environmental risk to lives and property for this entire area of London. Yet this river is deregulated from Environment Agency responsibility and often commercially driven boroughs so Thames Water must work out what to do in an ad hoc and uncoordinated way instead. 

 

The City of Westminster does seem at least to be trying seriously to take mitigating actions to protect its own residents and businesses on a borough boundary frontline siege basis, but these actions have clearly failed to accept this area’s wider geography and factor in the housing infrastructure in Brent’s urban growth zone.  Brent seems to think that leaseholders and tenants in Brent and City of Westminster should 'learn to live with' traumatic flood risk escalation  and then pay the costs created by its tall buildings growth area, built on a flood plain.

 

Liability is being cleverly being passed entirely to leaseholders and tenants for the moment, as this area’s big freeholder housing block owners will just make sure that flood repairs are actioned in a timely manner and that costs are then fully recovered from block leaseholders and tenants. They will be  paying literally forever for the extreme over development of this floodplain. This, when natural parkland flood defences (that Brent is destroying) had proved excellent in protecting South Kilburn and North Westminster for decades.

 

 

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

Brent Council apologises to pensioner over flooded flat repair delays

Disabled pensioner John Healy has received an apology from Brent Council over delays in repairing a leak in his South Kilburn block which flooded his kitchen in September leaving him without power and an unusable kitchen for a long period. LINK

In a response to John's complaint a Brent Council officer wrote: 

I am sorry to learn that you experienced a leak in your home and of the impact and inconvenience which this situation may have had on you.

On review of our records, we recognise that there was a delay in resolving the leak into your home as it proved difficult to trace: eventually we identified that it was found to be coming from a property which is located three floors above your home. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies on behalf of Brent Council for our failings in this regard and any additional stress and inconvenience caused as a result.

The Council offered a small token payment ' in recognition of the inconvenience caused as a result of the leak and for our service failure in terms of customer care.' John has accepted the offer.

GREAT NEWS! Pensioner's power is back on

Shortly after I posted the story below that John Healy was still without power and tweeted the link to Wates Group and Brent Council an electrician from Jaylec visited John late tonight and has restored the power. John had made the appointment before the South Kilburn Housing office closed at 5pm.

John told me, 'That should be the end of my 'leak saga' which lasted exactly three weeks. The kitchen is almost dry but my carpet will probably take a week to dry out. It is nice to have everything working, even though my fridge is empty.

I am glad for John but I do hope that councillors will review this case with Brent Council and Wates Living Space to see how their communication and procedures could be improved in such an emergency.

48 hours after leak repaired pensioner still without power

Disabled pensioner John Healy is still without power in his flat in William Dunbar House in South Kilburn 48 hours after the leak which flooded his kitchen was repaired.

He was expecting a visit from Brent Council's out-sourced repairs service, Wates Living Space, to assess the situation and hopefully restore the power but they have not called.

He is without full power in his kitchen and also in his sitting room and bedroom.  He first reported the leak more than two weeks ago.

Repair carried out at pensioner's flooded flat. Power still off.

The good news is that after two weeks the repair to dry risers at William Dunbar House on the South Kilburn Estate  that caused John Healy's flat to flood has at last been carried out. There was a residual amount of water that continued to drip from the ceiling but that has now stopped.

Unfortunately the flat will need to dry out before power can be restored and meanwhile John has no heating or hot water. Wates will need to visit to assess when power can be safely switched back on.

Leak in pensioner's flat spreads into sitting room

As councillors gather for tonight's Full Council, meeting I have just heard from John Healy that the saga of his flooded flat on South Kilburn Estate continues.  Despite the best efforts by Cllrs Long and Abdi, discussion at last week's Housing Scrutiny Meeting and visits from housing officers and Wates, the leak has not yet been repaired.

John tells me hat the leak is still in the kitchen but in a worsening of his situation has now spread into his living room as well.

He says that nobody from the council has been in touch today even though on Friday they said they would contact him today to offer him temporary accommodation.

I really did hope for better from Brent Housing now that it has been brought back in-house. The Council took over from BHP on the 27th September, 2017 promising big improvements in their performance targets, especially regarding repairs.

UPDATE: Disabled man's 'bitter experience' as he has to don wellies to enter flooded kitchen following Brent Council's failure to act

 UPDATE SEPTEMBER 12TH

Since this article was published a Brent housing officer has been in contact with John regarding his situation and has said she wants to arrange an appointment to restore power to his flat. No date yet. It has emerged that the flooding source is a different flat to the one first suspected.

John Healy, a Brent Council tenant in South Kilburn, has been left having to put on wellies to wade through his flooded kitchen after Wates, Brent Council Housing's out-sourced repair service, deemed the flat that was the source of the flooding unsafe for their employees to enter as the tenant is 'too dangerous.'

John has been waiting for action since last Wednesday. He told Wembley Matters:

Because of the flood in my kitchen, I have been left with no lights, heating, hot water microwave and worst of all having to throw out all of the from my full fridge that has gone off, as there is no power for it along with everything else. I have to put on wellies to enter the kitchen because there is so much water on the floor.

I informed them that I am a disabled 67 year old man with a mobility impairment and I was worried about slipping on my saturated carpets. This did happen but fortunately I was not injured.

Brent Council Housing's mission statement says 'A better experience for residents' unfortunately for be it is ' a bitter experience'. They say they are 'taking a holistic experience with Wates', for me it is more like 'taking the **** approach.'

John visited the South Kilburn repair office yesterday and was told they were dealing with source of the leak but in the evening Wates called in on John with a security officer and told him they could not enter the flat which is the source of the flat. His power cannot be restored because of the flooding.

The Wates officer suggested John  was entitled to be accommodated in bed and breakfast by Brent Council until the issue has been dealt with but the Council has not offered this option. He has submitted a complaint to the Council but this could take up to 20 days to be dealt with.

Wembley Matters has requested a comment from Brent Council.

Wet and dangerous welcome to 'Destination Wembley'

Leader of Brent Council, Muhamed Butt, told fellow members of the Labour Councillors' Business Network this morning about his plans for 'Destination Wembley'.

I hope councillors and business people from other parts of the country did not arrive via the Wembley Central station 'gateway'. The photograph above was taken at the foot of the steps on the southbound Bakerloo/Overground platform on Saturday.

Visitors to Wembley, already confused and bewildered by the closure of Wembley Park station and the lack of Jubilee and Metropolitan line trains, found themselves splashing through pools of water, avoiding mops and buckets and dodging drips as they squeezed on to the over-crowded platform.

Not a great advertisement for 'Destination Wembley' I am afraid.

How to Fight Climate Change & Rebuild a Stricken City

This guest blog from Chris Williams puts the news from the US in a wider context:

Despite the fact that New Yorkers live on several different islands, straddling the mouth of a great tidal river, on the edge of a storm-tossed ocean, city transit workers rightly pride themselves on their ability to effectively and safely transport New York’s seven million inhabitants, 75% of whom do not own a car, day in, day out, 24/7.
 
However, personally, I’ve always maintained that the single best way to get around my adopted city is by bike.  While my two-wheeled personal chariot isn’t for everyone – and, as winter draws near, often not for me, it nevertheless offers one of the quickest, if not necessarily the safest, ways to navigate the concrete and steel canyons of New York City. 
 
When some of those canyons are newly formed waterways, obstructed by the occasional upturned house, subway stations are cavernous underground swimming pools and transit tunnels connecting the outer boroughs and Long Island to Manhattan have been converted into mile-long gigantic electro-chemical cells made from millions of gallons of sea water and ample amounts of corroding metals, getting around by bike suddenly becomes the only viable way of efficiently plotting a route through this tortured city, ripped asunder by Frankenstorm Sandy. 
 
The dislocation of this intricate web of interconnected arteries of communication and travel, along with hundreds of thousands of people still without power and thousands no longer with homes, has brought the city to its knees.  Normally crackling with energy and throbbing with life, biking through a desolate, darkened and almost deserted Downtown, where huge slices of lower Manhattan are still without power, is eerily reminiscent of the days after 9/11. 
 
The inadequacy of the city's preparedness for the kind of extreme weather events that are becoming all too common as a result of climate change-enhanced impacts can be seen from space - with satellite photos showing a large swath of lower Manhattan and other areas of the eastern seaboard still shrouded in darkness. If this is the 'best-prepared city in America’ to deal with climate change, as Mayor Bloomberg has claimed as a result of his environmental initiatives, then God help everyone else.
 
It may have taken a gargantuan storm of epic proportions, and the wiping out of large parts of the Atlantic coast of the United States, to get politicians talking about the reality of climate change, but NY Governor Cuomo did finally manage to stare reality in the face and muster enough political courage, post-storm, to say that it illustrated there “is the recognition that climate change is a reality; extreme weather is a reality; it is a reality that we are vulnerable"; while going on to admit, “Protecting this state from coastal flooding is a massive, massive undertaking. But it's a conversation I think is overdue."  Millions of New Yorkers would no doubt strongly agree.
 
In a study carried out in 2009 by Stony Brook University's Storm Surge Research Group, the cost of installing flood defenses for the city was put at $10 billion.  However, as one of the authors of the report, oceanography professor Malcolm Bowman commented after Sandy, "At the end of the day, I wouldn't be surprised if fixing the city up from this catastrophe costs more than that easily," before adding, “And it could happen again in the next year." 
 
Just two months ago engineer Douglas Hill, part of the same group at Stony Brook warned, “They lack a sense of urgency about this,” as the New York Times reported,
 
“Instead of “planning to be flooded,” as [Hill] put it, city, state and federal agencies should be investing in protection like sea gates that could close during a storm and block a surge from Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean into the East River and New York Harbor.”
 
While it is still too early to say with any assurance, rough early estimates of the cost of getting New York back on its feet are $25 billion – which doesn’t even account for putting in place new flood defense mechanisms, nor the ongoing oceans of human suffering that is a result of this year’s storm.
 
Mayor Bloomberg, despite not a whisper of the phrase during the presidential campaign, has just endorsed President Obama on the basis that he will do something more substantial about climate change than a President Romney.  
 
On the face of it, that seems hard to argue with; however, it’s also a pretty low bar, one which you’d have to be rather feeble not to be able to rise to.  When you’ve got a life-threatening fever, the difference between someone ignoring you completely, versus stopping to briefly offer some kindly words of encouragement, isn’t going to noticeably improve your chances of survival, even if you temporarily feel a bit better with the second approach.  A much more pertinent question with regard to climate change is: would Obama do enough? 
 
We can begin our examination of this question by asking it of our billionaire mayor.  Self-evidently, whatever Bloomberg thought he was prepared for, forward planning by the city to cope with a weather event like Sandy was, to put it mildly, inadequate.
 

The fact is an event like Sandy was all too predictable - and indeed predicted. Three years ago, the panel of experts that Mayor Bloomberg had convened to investigate the likely impact of climate change on New York, aptly named the New York City Panel on Climate Change, gave its initial report.  It stated that average temperatures in New York City had already increased by 2.5⁰F over the last 100 years, while sea levels had risen by a foot in the same time period. 

These facts have already caused increased health impacts and costs from heat stress as the number of days over 90 degrees has increased, along with the vulnerability of low lying coastal areas – New York has 520 miles of coastline to protect and 200,000 people live no more than four feet above high tide.  The panel predicted another 1.5-3⁰F average increase by 2020, along with another 2-5 inches of sea-level rise.  The fuel for hurricanes is warm surface ocean temperature and increased humidity and air temperature – all outcomes of global warming.  Under the sub-section titled “Sea level rise-related impacts may include”, the three year old report outlined as areas for particular concern:

• Inundation of low-lying areas & wetlands

• Increased structural damage & impaired operations
 
At the release of the report, in what is now a particularly damning quote, Bloomberg had this to say: “Planning for climate change today is less expensive than rebuilding an entire network after the catastrophe...We cannot wait until after our infrastructure has been compromised to begin to plan for the effects of climate change now”.  In the same year, an MTA report on sustainability and resilience warned that global warming posed, “a new and potentially dire challenge for which the M.T.A. system is largely unprepared.”
 
No one can say the city and the people we elect to act as our guardians weren't given a taste of what was possible.  Almost a year to the day, we received fair warning from Hurricane Irene, which forced the evacuation of 350,000 people from the flood prone areas of New York, now designated the dreaded “Zone A”.  Having occurred once and had a lucky escape, how could we imagine it might not happen again and be potentially worse?
 
In fact, as outlined above, Bloomberg's own report indicated how at risk the city was.  More recently, in September, a shocking article in light of the storm this week, the New York Times, in a piece titled, “New York Is Lagging as Seas and Risks Rise, Critics Warn”, cited Klaus H. Jacob, a research scientist at Columbia University's Earth Institute, that Irene's flood waters had come within six inches of inundating the subway system, other low-lying areas of NYC and paralyzing the city for weeks or months, exactly as has now come to pass with Sandy.
 
As an author of the state study, Jacob had this to say: “We’ve been extremely lucky...I’m disappointed that the political process hasn’t recognized that we’re playing Russian roulette.”
 
If the empty chamber was Irene, we bought the bullet with Sandy. Furthermore, many of the flooded areas that are not being talked about in the media, which is concentrating on lower Manhattan, areas around the coastline of Brooklyn and Queens that are the industrial hub of New York, where many working class and lower income people live, contain toxic sites and chemical storage areas,.  If one lays a map of the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory sites over a map of Zone A, one finds a strong correlation.  These all need to be assessed, checked for safety and their flood defenses hugely enhanced as quickly as possible.
 
Except of course, due to the dictates of capital locally, the electoral priorities of politicians, and the geostrategic interests of the US state federally, along with the power of the fossil fuel corporations and the inherent short-termism built into the structure of capitalism, there was no money for the kind of infrastructural changes that were so clearly urgently required. 
 
New York City is not preventing the conversion of more ocean-front property located on top of flood plains into ill-conceived, short-term money-spinners for realtors and land speculators, either through buying the land or implementing tougher development criteria, as some other US cities have done.  Nor did Con Edison spend the $250 million in investment the company deemed necessary to install submersible switches and move high-voltage transformers above ground level, things that may have prevented the explosion that wiped out electricity in lower Manhattan – even though the company made $1 billion in profit last year.
 
$10 billion for flood defense is less than half of Mayor Bloomberg's estimated wealth, at $25 billion.  If the mayor really wanted to go down in the history books and have generations of future New Yorkers think of him as a human being rather than an uber-rich financial parasite who managed to buy himself a third term, he could give $10 billion to the city for flood defense and still be a multi-billionaire!
 
Now that politicians have suddenly realized that New York is, in fact, a coastal city, and extreme weather events are an outcome of another very real phenomenon, climate change, we need to spend billions to make the necessary changes to city infrastructure and preparedness and replicate those changes across the country.  Sea-level in New York has already risen a foot over the last 100 years, and it's accelerating.  As sea level continues to rise if we continue not to act on the burning of fossil fuels, even relatively minor storms will begin to cause problems, let alone a repeat of something like Irene or Sandy.
 
Yet, according to an MIT report, perhaps unsurprisingly, the United States ranks among the regions of the world with the least number of cities that are making preparations for climate change, even though, as it’s also the richest, it would be the most capable of adapting and strengthening the resilience of its urban areas.  The report states: 
 
“Among 468 cities worldwide that participated in the survey, 79 percent have seen changes in temperature, rainfall, sea level or other phenomena attributable to climate change; 68 percent are pursuing plans for adapting to climate change”
 
As a result, a full 95% of cities in Latin America are taking action, yet the figure for the US is just 59%, most of them focused not on building resilience to rising sea-levels or stronger storms per se, but more on reducing carbon footprints.
 
But rather than build massive sea gates like some mediaeval fortress, let's build a city worthy of the 21st century. While those sorts of technological solutions may well be necessary in the short term, let's rebuild natural flood defenses such as the vast oyster beds which used to surround New York harbor until the water became too polluted for them to survive.
 
Instead of ripping up and paving over marshland and other wetlands with impermeable concrete to build roads, parking lots and marginal beach front developments, let's employ people to reclaim the land for natural flood defenses and water purification activities that will not only make New Yorkers much safer, give people meaningful and socially useful employment, but also hugely enhance the stability and variety of local wildlife.
 
Let's start with that and then see what else needs doing over the shorter term, which will likely include extra sea defenses, as well as lots of things that can be done to enhance the safety and security from flooding with subway tunnels, electricity sub-stations and so on.
 
New York’s antiquated and totally inadequate sewage treatment system needs a complete overhaul as almost any heavy rainstorm means that untreated sewage goes straight into the rivers and ocean as the system becomes overloaded with run-off. According to the city, only 41% of city bridges are in good repair.  The city only recycles 15% of its vast solid waste output, the rest going to landfill.  While a comprehensive set of solutions is well beyond the scope of this article, it’s obvious even from these few suggestions, that what’s preventing us from enacting these changes isn’t a technological deficiency, but a social and political one.
 
Looking further ahead, we clearly need a more robust public transit system, which would include taking the vast majority of cars out of Manhattan and replacing many of the roads with trams and bike lanes. These are just some of things that could be done while employing tens of thousands of people.  If money is required, let’s tax the rich, remove subsidies from the fossil fuel and nuclear corporations and make sure that the 2/3’s of US corporations who currently pay no income tax have their loopholes closed so they can’t offshore their profits just like they do their workers.  If we need more, let’s radically reduce the budget to the US military, which is the world’s single largest producer of greenhouse gases – not to mention violence and death.
 
Looking at this, it’s clear however, that whatever we force Bloomberg to do, and whichever representative of the 1% follows him as mayor of New York, it won’t make any difference if we can’t force change on the federal level.  A microcosm of Obama's inadequacies on dealing with climate change, Bloomberg's PlaNYC is patently not nearly enough to do the job for NYC in much the same way that Obama's plans haven't “slowed the rise of the oceans”.   
 
President and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation in Washington, D.C., Joshua Schank commented on the role of the federal government under Obama in hampering progress:
 
“The federal government has been, for the most part, denying the existence of climate change, and that has unfortunately extended to transportation funding and transportation planning processes, which do not account for adaptation to climate change…And that is part of why we saw the devastation that we saw today, because we haven't been acknowledging it and, therefore, we haven't planned to adapt to it or made changes to reduce emissions."
 
But Obama’s role in retarding progress on climate action is much worse than this. In a stunning revelation in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, it’s reported that, in an off-the-record meeting with environmental activists and administration officials, the Obama Whitehouse took a decision in 2009 – when the Democrats had super-majorities in both Houses of Congress and large amounts of political capital - to abandon the phrase “climate change” and back down on the fight.  This u-turn coming a bare 12 months after being elected in large part on promises to put taking action on climate change at the forefront of an Obama Administration.  
 
Even worse, at the meeting where this was communicated, were the leaders of some of the largest and most influential environmental organizations who all went along with what the Administration was asking them – to ditch the word climate change, along with their political principles. 
 
At the meeting were leaders of Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and the student-oriented “protest” organization Power Shift, as well as Van Jones.  The Guardian quotes Jessy Tolkan, at that time a leader of Power Shift: “My most vivid memory of that meeting is this idea that you can't talk about climate change."  
 
Even the more radical Bill McKibben of 350.org agreed to shift his emphasis in order not to embarrass the administration and secretly acquiesce to the demand.   Presumably, in the hopelessly forlorn and deeply misguided belief that Obama, in defiance of all logic, would somehow be better able to act if he never mentioned the reason behind the necessity of making any changes in energy, transportation, housing or infrastructure spending to make it more sustainable and less carbon and energy intensive. 
 
In fact, after that sell-out, the Democrats couldn’t even pass the weakest and most ineffectual of climate bills because they were hamstrung by their decision not to talk about climate change - the whole point of the failed bipartisan Waxman-Markey Energy Bill.   A decision which has since of course opened the door to climate change being denied entirely by the ever-rightward tracking, anti-science wing of the  Republican Party, and allowed climate deniers to gain the upper hand. 
 
Therefore, those environmental leaders at that meeting with the Obama administration, must shoulder some of the blame for the fact that there was no mention of climate change in the presidential debates and that nothing meaningful on the scale required has been done to tackle it.  To the extent that hundreds of thousands of people along the east coast are now trying to live without electricity or running water because there was insufficient political pressure on politicians to act in our interests, rather than those of their corporate paymasters. 
 
Rather than sitting in plush congressional offices lobbying Democrats, if those highly influential environmental organizations had spent their time and not insignificant wealth launching a people’s campaign of uncompromising resistance to mainstream politicians and the corporations whose bidding they carry out, under the slogan popularized at the Copenhagen climate protests in 2009, “System Change not Climate Change”, where might the movement have been by now?  What could we have achieved?   As I survey a broken city, surely more than we have?
 
Because, despite this silence from the large environmental organizations and Democrats, and following a rapid decline in news about climate change in the US media from 2009 to 2011, in another sign of how dislocated politicians are from reality, according to the latest polls 70% of the American public believes that climate change is a real phenomenon that requires action.
 
As I argued in a previous piece, real answers will only come from the people - when we manage to organize and fight for the things we need through a radical change in social power - from them to us.  Because, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. from his speech “Where Do We Go From Here?”, as he tried to assess where the civil rights movement should go in 1967, having achieved legal political equality, he reasoned that we have to begin to ask more fundamental questions about ownership and economic rights that go to the heart of the system:
 
“We must honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society.  There are forty million poor people here, and one day we must ask the question, “Why are there forty million poor people in America?”  And when you ask that question, you are raising a question about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.  When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy…And you see my friends, when you deal with this you begin to ask the question, “Who owns the oil?”  You begin to ask the question, “Who owns the iron ore?”  You begin to ask the question, “Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that’s two third’s water?” 
 
Those are exactly the kind of questions a new movement for social and ecological justice must ask.

Chris Williams is a long-time environmental activist and author of Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis (Haymarket, 2010). He is chair of the science dept at Packer Collegiate Institute and adjunct professor at Pace University in the Dept of Chemistry and Physical Science. His writings have appeared in Z Magazine, Green Left Weekly, ClimateandCapitalism.com, Counterpunch, The Indypendent, Dissident Voice, International Socialist Review, Truth Out, Socialist Worker, and ZNet. He reported from Fukushima in December and January and was a Lannan writer-in-residence in Marfa, Texas over the summer.