This may seem like an unwarranted question, Should We Rebuild New Orleans?--the sentimental response would be, "Yes, of course". And other objections about people losing their homes and, more importantly, their neighborhood heritage seem obvious, but being the down-to-earth Taurus that I am, prgamatic questions arise.
The cost for rebuilding the levees has already reached $10B. Much of the city needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Who knows the level of toxicity that presently exists? (the government won't tell us). The wetlands that protected the city from flood were fairly devastasted before Katrina. I doubt they are useful at all now. Much of the city, as we know, was at poverty level before the disaster, and basically served as a low-wage labor source for the tourist industry. Of course, the port served as a critical hub for shipments up the Mississippi, but how many times will companies rebuild their facilities after hurricanes? Add the fact that the city stands about 50 feet below sea level (I am not sure about the exact figure, but I know it is enough to be a major stumbling block). With all of the above, add that climatologists expect Category 4 and 5 hurricanes to be the norm, there are many arguements AGAINST building anew.
So, my dear companions, what are your thoughts? Is New Orleans worth rebuilding? Why or why not?
4 comments:
Every summer wildfires sweep through swanky neighborhoods in southern California. During hurricane season the same swaths of beachfront property in Florida get hit again and again. No one ever asks if they should be rebuilt. They just are. Whether to rebuild or not is only a question in New Orleans because they were poor.
Yes they do get rebuilt and I do not think they should be. Developers rebuild becase they get tax breaks and know they will make money. People move into these dangerous areas because they can afford the insurance or a loss if it happens. Likely not the case in NO.
I am afraid you are correct. My post is a TOD, not an opinion. But I think many of the excuses cited in the post will be used to justify making NO into a Disneyland not a real city.
I do think that if it is rebuilt it must be done completely. The wetlands that protected in the must be recreated. Levees that actually keep water out must be built. Unfortunately, Louisiana is a poor state rife for with corruption for decades. That most people who lived there were near the poverty line does not bode well for its being restored to anywhere near its former luster. Very sad, I know. But expected.
The one saving grace is the port. But somehow I see rebuilding that favoring fat cats and not the poor and wretched who endured the poor pollution standards the area is known for.
Ok...I'm feeling compelled to jump in here. I think the suggestion that this question revolves around class issues is simplistic. Let's get the givens out here in front. Katrina & it's aftermath have exposed real issues of racism. But there is an issue of scale that has to be addressed. The federal costs associated with California wildfires was about 200 million. Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne -- plus Tropical Storm Bonnie resulted in about 3 billion in federal spending.
The levies alone are projected to run 10 billion. The total federal spending could top 100 billion. BILLION dollars.
Before we spend that money, there are a couple of things on the table. What is the likelihood of another "katrina scale event" in the next 10 to 25 years. Answer... Very High. There are already a lot of reports that indicate the rebuilt levies will be sub standard (i.e. less able to handle this type of event than the orignals) because of the slipshod choice of materials. Second question. Will private insurers cover flood damages from this (very likely) next round of damage? Ha..Ha..Ha (read that as extraordinarily unlikely).
So here it is. Does it make sense to drop more than a hundred billion dollars rebuilding a city so that we can take out the paycheck again in a decade or so. I don't think so. I think we should spend that money on trying to pull the impacted people out of this crisis & an use it as an opportunity to see if we can do something about the poverty rather than dumping money down a bog (the whole how to deal with poverty in this country is another long discussion).
Deek is right...if we want to save a part of New Orleans (for historic reasons perhaps) then we should take this as an opportunity to start with a blank slate & build in a way that makes sense with respect to the ecological realities.
Last bit. Wildfires, Florida hurricane damage, & Katrina are only the beginning. A warming world is one with more crazy weather. I think it's time to start thinking about what kinds of mitigation strategies make sense. IMAO that means some hard nose oportunity cost calculations on what we should be spending our money on.
mdh you have read my motivations wisely. You also bring up another point I believe merits its own post. Those of us (general population, not members of this blog group, who are the smartest people on the planet) astute enough to move beyond the 'is it or is not global warming' argument understand the broader implications. What is worth saving, what is not? How far do we look ahead? What is the worse case scenario? The last is on table and should be a part of the discussion.
Yes, 100 billion and counting IMAO is too much. It is a great loss, But sometimes we have to count our losses and move on. The big insurance companies already calculate great losses of shorelines all over the gulf and the northern east coasts. Where will these displaced people live? What industries will be lost? Other scary stories await. Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada are now in cool periods; normal temperatures could reach about 150° F, unliveable one would think. The permafrost all over the Arctic region is melting, representing a ticking bomb of CO2 release. Beyond that one must wonder how much of the Alaska pipeline is tied to this no longer stable ground. With all of this one must wonder how much carrying capacity we can count on.
I know how pessimistic this sounds, but until last year I suspected warming trends still could be addressed in the next few years and solutions reached. I now know for a fact we are past the "tipping point"; whether the magic number of 560 ppm is evident or not does not matter b/c our societies are nowhere near agreeing this is a problem, let alone developing workable alternatives.
I urge you to post you thoughts on this. I fear of speaking too much in this forum and urge you to add your apparently well thought out ponderings.
Post a Comment