Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Did you read the article?
|
Sure did,
Its conclusion that we should use this catastrophe to spring board into fighting climate change is flawed because instead of dealing with it as a engineering problem it politicizes it and then nothing gets done.
It comes from a point of view that you can somehow convince people that climate change is real and that this should spur action. That is not the case. Therefore the path suggested by the article is dangerous.
It's only in the very last paragraphs it recognizes the real solution of better city design. It also tries to state that you can't engineer your way out of the problem which is also false.