Emilie and I saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' a week or so ago - I highly recommend it.
We have been studying a great deal about New Orleans; not only the cause of the disaster after Katrina but also possible solutions. It is abundantly clear to me that electing George Bush is the absolute worst thing that could have happened to our country. In terms of New Orleans, he refuses to fund a plan that has been agreed is appropriate by just about everyone who knows - its cost, 14 billion (about 1 1/2 months in Iraq). He is putting the wetlands that surround New Orleans in jeopardy by blocking all funding for restoration that does not have corporate interests as its impetus. The wetlands that surround New Orleans (besides preserving wildlife (I know - only hippies care about that) help protect the city from storm surge. For every mile inland of wetland storm surge is reduced by a foot. To cite an example - the wetland loss that has occured between 1940 and the present would have reduced the Katrina storm surge about 7.5 feet, greatly reducing the impact of the storm.
The New Orleans issue fascinates me because I think it epitomizes a global current (or at least a national one). The disaster in New Orleans was/is the result of an attempt to control nature (levees), a willingness to neglect nature (wetlands), a feeling of human dominance over the natural world, and a lack of critical care for the region. I am continually amazed at the antics of the Bush Administration.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/blumenthal/2005/08/31/disaster_preparation/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot."
"Some research indicates that storm surge in adjacent inland areas is reduced by 1 foot for every square mile -- 640 acres -- of wetland that is restored."
-San Fran. Chronicle
(I have found plenty of other sources that indicate the same)
and...what's your point? Half a foot/quarter foot would still have a great impact. Look up the Louisiana land loss maps - you will see how important it is that the 'Coast 2050' plan be implemented. George W. Bush feels differently however - thinks we should spend the billions elsewhere. Oh well - goodbye New Orleans.
I was only quoting the article you cited. I wasn't sure where you go the info.
In any event, I'm not defending Bush. I think he is bad for the country and is (thankfully) killing the Republican Party. I expect we will not see a Republican in the White House after 2008. (Perhaps McCain, but I doubt he can salvage the mess the Bush administration has ade of things).
When it comes to the environment, I think changes need to be made and soon. If we don't change our energy/land consumption ways, we're in for a world of hurt. More storms, more catastrophes.
The problem is how you go about doing it. Most of the plans I have seen are, in my opinion, too drastic to be realistic. Idealism is important, but implementing those ideas needs to be done realistically. Gradual steps need to be taken. And it needs to be easy--and economical to the end-consumer--for most people to make the necesary changes. For example, I think people would recycle, if it was easy to do. I also think people would support alternative energy sources if they could do so simply and could see immediate savings. Unfortunately, the current generation wants instant gratification.
Last rant on the Bush administration -- the war against terror is a ridiculous fight that cannot be won. How do you defeat a nonexistent enemy? We might as well declare a war against hot air--it's as easy to track down and eradicate as "terror" is.
Okay, that's enough. As you can probably see, we're on the same page on most of these issues.
Go LONGHORNS!!!!!!!!
I hear you. Often though I feel that many of the corporate interests blocks good alternative energy programs. In the long run the real expense, both financial and human costs, we be greater by not acting to solve the problem.
Hook 'em
Post a Comment