Why should anyone bother to rebuild New Orleans

if we don't stop burning fossil fuels? I ask because if we don't reverse climate change, the sea is going to rise ten or twenty feet in the next few decades. How much rise would nullify rebuilding efforts? I'm just sayin'......

By the way, I think New Orleans is a treasure beyond price. I would like to see it rebuilt and the unique "flavor" maintained. But not if it's just going to flood forever in a few years.

Comments: :hi:

they will be even more reluctant to participate in actions to counter global warming. In a few years, the question could be "why bother to protect New York? "Why try to protect San Francisco? And so on. They might simply move their headquarters to Iowa and write off coastal cities.

in which case there won't -be- any more coastal cities. (Not likely in a "few" years though)...

will get into gear fighting climate change to save NO and other cities?

is that the flooding exacerbated and is increasing the rate of sinking of the basin. Rising seas combined with an already below sea level and sinking faster city--it doesn't look good.

:-(

Lake Pontchartrain that failed, not the levies that protect if from the Gulf waters. Aside from that I think you have a point, especially for the area(s) that sit in the "bowl." On the other hand, The Netherlands seems to have solved the problem, and they are always getting pounded by the Atlantic.

I'm just sayin'...:hide:

i salute you

level rise? That would be interesting, I'll bet.

they've managed to survive North Atlantic storms for years. My guess is that the seas have been a lot higher than 10-20'.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

Flooding of islands and polders killed 1,835 people and forced the evacuation of 70,000 more. An estimated 10,000 animals drowned, and 4,500 buildings were destroyed. Floods covered 9% of Dutch farmland, and sea water inundated 2,000 km² (800 mi²) of polders. Total damage was estimated at 895 million Dutch guilders. Many people still commemorate the dead on February 1st.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-10/2005-10-04-voa38.cfm is also interesting.

Projections are around 20 inches over the course of the next century. Their seawalls, as they are now, are perfectly capable of withstanding that type of rise.

Have compromised barrier islands off the coast. Twenty years ago the levees could have handled Katrina, but because there aren't as many islands off Louisiana's coast, there was nothing to slow the force. We've lost natural protection.

10, 20, 30 years ago and ones taken recently. There's a amazing difference.

Glad to hear life is getting better for you, Amelie!

:hi:

Don't need as much roads and such for a 150,000 person city which it's looking like that is what it will be.

why should anyone rebuild the world trade center or any part of manhattan, it's actually an island in the ocean

jeez louise, catch a clue people


it used to be quite a well known fact that new orleans is on the mississippi river and lake ponchartrain, and i invite anyone who thinks it has been relocated in the last 40 years to come down and see for yourself that it's still on the mississippi river and lake ponchartrain

are you also opposing the rebuilding of biloxi and gulfport, which are in fact, on the gulf of mexico?

hmm, didn't think so

two pieces of advice -- if you don't know what you're talking about stop talking and it's never a good idea to repeat fascist/wingnut memes without careful investigation

rise would flood New Orleans. I'm glad that is not the case. Full speed ahead with the rebuilding I say!

theophilus, if you have nothing useful to offer in the recovery and rebuilding, i strongly urge you to stfu and let those who do have something positive to offer get on w. it

what is the point of all of the negativity?

how many other cities are you willing to abandon, bearing in mind that 70-80 percent of world population lives in flood plains, before you accept that we must, can, and WILL develop the technology to save our cities

there is nothing to be gained by "oh woe" and "i give up," it is a very selfish and self-indulgent way of feeling superior about yourself for being way too smart to care and to get involved in improving something

there is not one good positive purpose that can come of posts such as yours

you know why the wingnuts leave such posts, it is because they are cheap azz, but you need to look into your own soul and ask yourself why you are parroting their meme

again, i ask -- why is it new orleans that you want abandoned but not biloxi? is it because on the teevee news you saw more black and poor people in new orleans? because there is no LOGIC based on global warming that would cause any sane, scientific person to recommend abandoning new orleans BEFORE abandoning biloxi or gulfport

quite simply, the question comes from a classist, racist desire to try to keep a black person or a poor person from somehow getting an extra dollar

you may not be aware -- you are almost certainly NOT AWARE -- of how the question got into your head

but again, now that it is pointed out to you, can you honestly explain -- WHY would you first oppose the rebuilding of new orleans rather than biloxi if your issue is rising sea levels?

the only true answer is...rising sea levels are NOT the reason this argument is made

ship it back to the wingnuts and the moonbats please

That you are personally volenteering to go and occupy a deckchair somewhere on the coast, near Pointe a la Hache, and do a King Canute? You can stop the sea-level from rising and the gulf storms from intensifying? That would be cool.

If you can't, the question is not "Why is Theophilus so negative about rebuilding?", it' "Why does Pitohui want to keep these people living in harm's way?".

i am the first to say that if you don't own reliable transportation and are not in good enough health to be able to comply with necessary evacuation orders, don't live here, don't come back here

this atlantic hurricane cycle is a reality for at a minimum the next 10 years

nonetheless, unless you want to give up the oil fields, the refineries, and shipping of necessaries like FOOD on the mississippi river, people need to live here

a gambling rig can be anywhere -- even in the desert -- the mississippi river cannot be relocated

the only reason people are seeking to close down new orleans, when they are not opposed to rebuilding biloxi/gulfport -- is because of the perceived number of GOP voters living in mississippi as opposed to new orleans

this is a democratic website, i would ask why ANYONE allowed to post here continues to advocate that new orleans (in lesser danger from such storms) should be abandoned when they are not making such recommends for biloxi/gulfport (in a more exposed location and at a greater danger from such storms)

that is about as much as i can say w.out violating terms of service but it's pretty clear to me what element is opposed to the rebuilding of new orleans

i have stood on the ground in biloxi and gulfport and seen entire neighborhoods vanished where i couldn't even find the SLAB -- even the lower 9th in new orleans is not that extreme

Rebuilding NO has been a topic here many times. I used NO as an example because of that fact. My original post is only about NO to provoke some thought and discussion. For your benefit, please substitute the words Biloxi and Gulfport for the words New Orleans. The quesiton is the same and the second part seems to be the part you are not seeing. IF global climate change is going to wipe out Biloxi and Gulfport in the next forty or fifty years, is it worth spending billions to rebuild them and do nothing to stop catastrophic climate change? In other words, do you agree we are going to be very, very disrupted if climate change continues? Do you think we should marshall our forces and focus to do something about it now?

Now. Is that better? Gulfport and Biloxi. Rebuild or not? If the seas are going to cover them? Is it worth it? Do you want to stop climate change that humans are causing?

differently, however. Did you not see that I want NOLA to be rebuilt? I will also add that any major rebuilding of our coastal cities is just rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg if we don't stop catastrophic climate change. Unlike you, I don't believe there will be a "magic bullet" to save our coastal cities. Even if we did manage to build huge levees or sea walls, the inhabitants would just starve to death or die for lack of oxygen if climate change is not addressed in a major way.

I am trying to get folks to realize that climate change is THE MOST IMPORTANT topic right now, or at least it should be. All else depends on getting the CO2 under control. I am not a racist or against the rebuilding of NOLA. On the contrary. I just wish that everyone on the board was as interested in this thread as you are. There might be some progress. As it is, very few seem to care.

I'll admit that most threads are discussing important things. But I just want you to admit that if the sea level rises twenty feet in thirty years we're all going to be frakked. Horse before the cart.....solve climate change......do it while rebuilding NOLA so that it is not an exercise in futility. Stop wars of aggression and spend that money on non-fossil fuel energy, etc. That is the message. That is all. Change WILL happen.

it's too late to "solve" climate change, it's already happening

we need real solid tech and serious programs -- better levees, serious coastal restoration projects, buying people out of areas such as lower plaquemines parish that are too dangerous for permanent housing etc. -- programs that can be a model for the real future

sitting around and saying we won't rebuild this and we won't rebuild that is quite simply an abandonment of our future

i could care less about whether a bunch of old termite-bitten buildings were salvaged, saving new orleans and our coasts is about america's future not its past

we might as well learn how to do it now and do it right, why wait until it's boston or manhattan that is destroyed by rising waters?

seems to me...those who TRULY believe in global climate change...are NOT the same people arguing that new orleans not be rebuilt

those who TRULY believe in global climate change can look at any map of the world and see where people live -- the floodplains -- they KNOW the problem must be solved because it is going to arise again and again

if it was just a matter of leaving a bunch of old buildings to the formosan termites and shipping a bunch of musicians to chicago, i'd be the first to say, who cares? the past is the past

but it's about the future, isn't it?

PM me, unless it is me.

NOLA is on the Mississippi delta's alluvial fan, which is not the most solid piece of real estate. The ground is only stable so long as it can regularly flood and top up the silt: When this is prevented the whole damn thing settles, which is why NOLA is largely below sea level. And the sea will continue to erode the edges of the fan, because it's nothing more than compacted mud: with increased storms and a rising sea-level, that's going to accelerate.

If you grab a map, and draw a line from Gulfport to Franklin, that'll give you an idea of the where the sea thinks the coast should be. How long that will take is an interesting question, but we'll find out sooner or later.

Eventually, New Orleans is going to go the same way as Herakleion, built on similar land in the Nile Delta.

beautiful picture. The fact is that when NO was founded it was a lot further from the sea than it is today, meaning there were a lot of barrier islands, forest, and marshes between it and the Gulf. Most of that is gone now. What is left is going as we speak.....

I've googled out something you might find interesting - go to http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/pubs/maps.html and look at one of the "Generalized Geologic" maps (pdf): You can trace the "real" coastline by following the edge of the Pleistocene terrace: Everything from the Holocene (ie, within the last 12,000 years) is susceptible to rapid erosion.

(The Pleistocene terraces aren't exactly solid, but I'll assume they'll last longer than the modern stuff)

There will be a point of equilibrium where the river deposits silt at the same rate the ocean erodes it, but that could end up anywhere between NOLA and the Arkansas state line.

Now there's a cheering thought. :(

The last time I looked, that is not a RW meme. I wish it was a left wing meme. It apparently isn't.

parroting a winger meme is not raising consciousness, it is spreading ignorance

if you wished to raise awareness about rising sea levels you would start by asking why we are rebuilding cities destroyed that were actually on the sea, to wit, biloxi and gulfport

i accept that we all have ideas in our head that we don't know how they got there, but now you have a duty to at least look at a map

can you answer the question -- why did you choose to abandon new orleans, which is not on the sea, instead of the good "republican" mississippi cities that are on the sea, hmmmmm?

(for the record, i do not advise the abandonment of any city, we need to develop tech to stop this crap, however, if a concern about global warming and rising sea levels were the genuine topic of discussion we would first retreat from cities that are ACTUALLY right on the sea)

I've just looked at the geology of Mississippi, and they look pretty fucked, too.

do you think someone should stop them?

I don't know enough detail about the geology to make that call, but if they are as low-lying - and wrecked - as NOLA, this might be a good time to consider moving inland.

Although I get the impression from Pitohui that these are right-wing places, in which case they can stay put. :evilgrin:

I don't think it's a good idea to charge on with rebuilding without a very detailed assessment of the future, but as far as I know nobody has done one.

Throwing away the past would be regrettable. Throwing away the future is sheer stupidity.

know what is going to happen if greenhouse gases continue to build in the atmosphere? Would that knowledge and belief change their behavior?

I know many people that are rebuilding the same house that was rebuilt then.

Perhaps they don't know all that you know. Maybe you could drive to Biloxi and tell them how stupid they are, I'm sure they would appreciate it. For added emphasis you could be sure to spit in the direction of their face when speaking just to make sure they understand.

Interesting.

wow. You don't even need anyone to argue with do you, just yourself.

For added emphasis you could be sure to spit in the direction of their face when speaking

Kind of makes it sound like you don't think there's a problem with them rebuilding where they are, and that any concerns we might have are just empty arrogance, but maybe I've misunderstood you.

rebuilding. The arrogance is thinking anyone should tell someone else where they should and should not build their house or place of business. People live on or near fault lines, there are people that chose to live along rivers that have and will flood, why should anyone but them make that decision?

And what do you think it the problem with them rebuilding there? Is there some causal effect you think their building something in Southern Mississippi is going to have? If so why would you limit your desire to their not rebuilding and say we should consider the forced abandonment of Mobile, Pensacola, Panama City, Tampa, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties?

Is it you think and rightfully so that they should not rebuild because the Mississippi gulf coast will be hit with another hurricane? Anyone who has been hit with a natural disaster choses if they wish to rebuild or move, they make that decision, I've made that decision before and I really would not have enjoyed someone telling me how I was too stupid to know better. Do you think they gave no thought to rebuilding verses relocating?

You are right that people can happily take risks with where they live: As an example you brought up, I live near a fault line (about 25 metres from it, in fact) but this was based on the current projection that it's unlikely to move within the next 500 years, never mind the 4 or 5 I'm planning on being here. It's an acceptable risk.

What worries me is the people on Gulf coast don't have the sort of risk information they need to make an informed decision as to whether they should be rebuilding: The intensity of gulf hurricanes is going to get worse, and there seems to be a 50/50 chance Greenland will be loosing it's ice-shelf in the next 40 years or so: While sea defenses that can cope with a 20ft rise in sea level are perfectly possible, I'm not sure how much faith I'd have in a defense to cope with a 20ft rise and a cat-5 hurricane at the same time. Certainly I wouldn't want to bet my daughter's life on it holding up.

What worries me is all this rebuilding work is being done by people who haven't got the foggiest notion about what the future has in store for them. The current admin is hardly the world leader in getting to grips with climate change, or education: the only modeling being done is by a handful of individuals and foreign governments (who are understandably more interested in their own coastlines).

Rebuilding after Katrina because they did after '69 is a bit of a lop-sided view, because it carries the assumption that the situation will be the same for the next 35 years - and it won't be, not by a long way.

The problem is, I don't think they have that information. If they do, and they still want to rebuild, then fair enough. But if they are rebuilding when they are not aware, I think we should be very concerned. Not to the point of going down to Biloxi and spitting on them, but at least to the point of running some models and telling them what the results are.

Since I may die of old age before the bush admin does the work, I did it myself...

Here's The Gulfport/Biloxi stretch of coast c. 2050:



Gulfport hasn't got a port anymore, but I'm sure it could be re-engineered. The lakes around the back of Gulfport are just an artifact of the model, they'll (probably) stay dry.
Biloxi... well, it's still there, but it's a lot smaller.

And here's New Orleans. Or rather, the Orleans Archipelago:



Oops. The only to prevent that is to build a fucking big wall around it, and divert the Mississippi to go somewhere else.

OR move the whole thing inland at least 60 miles: Ignoring sea-walls, the nearest solid, dry land is around Gonzales, just SE of Baton Rouge, or on the other side of L. Pontchartrain.

Finally, here's an overview of the whole, soggy mess:




The key question you should be asking youself at this point isn't "Where is this guy pulling figures from?" or even "Who is this assclown, anyway?"

It's "Where are the NOAA/FEMA/NASA models?"

christ, what do you expect me to say then, i don't have time to listen to people who have nothing useful to offer and who only come around in order to spread negativity and despair

obviously we cannot just hit around on our thumbs and not start working on tech to save our coasts

you want EVERYBODY to give up their homes, well isn't that just peachy, may what you wish for others come back on you a thousand times for a thousand generations

i bet when a disaster hits your town you'll sing a different tune

to decide to change our life style and stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere in massive quantities. So much could be helped if we "stopped" doing a lot of insane things like lighting cities like Las Vegas and growing rice in the desert. It is all connected. If we get a handle on climate change, NO is saved as are we all....at least from catastrophic climate change. This is a monumental task and we need to focus. We need to view all in relation to climate change and its causes.

There are many collateral issues such as overpopulation, poverty, and war. These must be addressed. All will be addressed as we work to solve the climatological disaster that is already happening.

i would again respectfully point you to a map of the world and a few statistics

there are a billion people in india, another billion in china

how do you propose to keep all of those bright, striving people in poverty forever so that they don't all buy automobiles and beefsteak and contribute much more to the future greenhouse effect than any 300 million people in usa? everything al gore seems to propose boils down to emissions trading, yes, i can use less, but it matters not, for 10 people in other parts of the world are coming online to use more than i ever did, there is nothing 300 million people can do, not even committing mass suicide, that will stop the inevitable effect on climate of 2 billion more people driving cars and living at a better lifestyle

therefore, in the name of decency, since the goal is after all to raise people up and not to knock them down, we are not going to stop global climate change unless something radically new is invented

therefore we have no alternative but to develop technology and learn to deal with change and stop our cities from being destroyed by rising waters

we need better/stronger levee technology, we need better/stronger systems for evacuation (people in texas and florida often have very POOR ability to get out of harm's way), we need serious coastal restoration and wetlands restoration to provide buffer zones, we need better and more wind resistant building materials, we need to change building codes where they stop us from developing newer materials, we really need to get serious here in the areas of technology and legislation, because guess what riding your bike to work ain't gonna cut it any more

as far as "out there" proposals -- this may sound like kook stuff, but i personally believe we really need a manhattan type project to figure out how to turn these storms, it isn't just us, china is getting hammered to hell too...

what are driving all of the innovation and lifestyle change. I think a WWII effort, in combination with a Manhattan project, are needed. Much of the rest of the world already knows what needs to be done. We should lead the way to environmental sanity as we have been leading the way to environmental insanity.

I'm trying to get you to understand that it's going to take more than gritted teeth and Bruce Springsteen to tackle climate change. If you want to build a fucking great wall around the US coastline, go for it.

than one along the US-Mexico border!

Yet there actually seems to be support for that monstrosity, but not for one (or for any other kind of floodworks) that would actually serve to help Americans. :eyes:

should make INFORMED decisions. And also, many people cannot choose to just move. They are unable to do that financially. The government, us, must help out. We are not members of the GOP YOYO (You're on your own) party. We should believe in education and assistance. That's what I'm pushing.

Is it hateful to want to educate so that people may live? Is "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" your mantra? Are you a liberal? Are you a progressive? You seem to be anti-science and anti-prevention in this instance. I don't want to spit on people, I want people to know so that they can change and continue to live and prosper. I am guilty of that, indeed.

How can a poor man stand such times and live. by Bruce Springsteen.
www.brucespringsteen.net

Well, the doctor comes 'round here with his face all bright
And he says "in a little while you'll be alright"
All he gives is a humbug pill, a dose of dope and a great big bill
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
He says "me and my old school pals had some might high times down here
And what happened to you poor black folks, well it just ain't fair"
He took a look around gave a little pep talk, said "I'm with you" then he took a little walk
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
There's bodies floatin' on Canal and the levees gone to Hell
Martha, get me my sixteen gauge and some dry shells
Them who's got got out of town
And them who ain't got left to drown
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?
I got family scattered from Texas all the way to Baltimore
And I ain't got no home in this world no more
Gonna be a judgment that's a fact, a righteous train rollin' down this track
Tell me, how can a poor man stand such times and live?

i am glad the boss is not willing to throw up his hands and just give up

His gift is more than musical. It is empathy. He is such an amazing person.

It will attaract even more artists and creative people than before because you know that you have several years to work on your creation and document it before the next washout.

I think it will be great fun!!!

link?

All the projections I'm seeing are more like 10 to 20 INCHES in the next century. Still significant enough to displace millions of people though.

ice melts". There are tons. Did you see "An Inconvenient Truth" yet? It is a good source, too.

The thing is they keep saying, "This is happening faster than predicted". Anyway:

http://www.secretsoftheice.org/icecore/sealevel.html

Go to the second page. There is a lot of good information. Also note, if Antarctica really gets "going" the rise will be over two hundred (200!) feet. We're going to get to know each other right quick if that happens, refugees and all.

Not even in the movie.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0408_040408_greenlandicemelt.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1650439,00.html

They're talking 1000 to 3000 years according to models, and even those aren't taken too seriously.

It's not going to happen in the next 10-20 years as you stated, nor even in this century and I challenge you to provide me with one link that even claims that it might happen in that timeframe. Not that it could happen EVENTUALLY, but within that time frame.

1 to 2 feet is still catastrophic, and it's within most likely our lifetimes.

me. Here is a reference but I'll have to dig some more to find the studies:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4760

The pertinent paragraph:

Studies initially stated that while the melting of the world’s glacial ice was in progress and accelerating, the time frame of a total meltdown had not been established. Now, with more intensive studies, this period has dropped from an initial estimate of a thousand years to a hundred and finally, the most recent calculations predict that if the accelerating melt rate continues, both in Greenland, Antarctia and elsewhere (Swiss and Chinese glaciers are rapidly vanishing and their waters are pouring into the world’s oceans) the time frame has been lowered from between three to ten years.

Doesn't link one study, doesn't mention one reference, or have a single footnote. Sorry if I don't take that link at all seriously. Who are the scientists and what research are they referencing? I can't find a single reference that backs that up from a reputable source.

If there were a serious study showing that the sea levels were going to rise 20 feet within maybe 3 years it would be all over the news, regardless of the slant of the MSM, that's just too juicy to pass up.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-03-23-sea-level-rise_x.htm
"That does not mean the researchers are predicting a 20-foot ocean rise by the end of this century; more like a couple of feet, they think. But such a warming is expected to accelerate melting of the polar ice and could lead to considerable additional sea-level rise, they said."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1760773
"Computer models indicate that warming could raise the average temperature in parts of Greenland above freezing for multiple months and could have a substantial impact on melting of the polar ice sheets, says a second paper by researchers led by Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Melting could raise sea level one to three feet over the next 100 to 150 years, she said. "

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-greenland25jun25,0,1900887,full.story


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5220835
"A study published Friday in Science magazine finds that the Greenland ice sheet is shrinking faster than researchers had previously thought. The runoff from just this one part of the Earth could raise sea levels around the world by a quarter of an inch per decade. "

forty years:


http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0323-sea_levels.html

With a pertinent paragraph:

"The study, published in the March 24 issue of the journal Science, projects that by 2100 the Earth will likely be at least 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was during the last interglaciation, 129,000 to 116,000 years ago, when sea levels were about 20 feet (six meters) higher than the present."


The thing is, things are accelerating. The corporate media is not going to trumpet the studies. If we start getting methane from the ocean floor into the atmosphere, we're boned. The proverbial "tipping point" must not be reached for us to have hope of saving the coastal cities.

I'm sure there are others who are citing significant level increases for this century.

It says the temperature will rise to something it was approximately 116,000 to 129,000 years ago, when the average sea level was 13-20 ft higher. So yes...we're heading in that direction. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing the 10-20 years aspect.

That doesn't claim sea levels are going to rise 20 feet in 20 years. Even the Science article that references claims that the doubling of the melt would only contribute a quarter inch a decade. One Quarter Inch Per Decade. Sure it adds up, but we're still looking at a lot longer than decades till we get there.

Is it serious? Yes. Do we need to do something about it? Definately.

Do spurious unsupported claims that the sea level is goign to rise 20 feet over the next couple of decades hurt our getting through to otherwise thick headed people who then turn off all their (decidedly few) receptors? Yes.

After all, they're just going to have more earthquakes. :sarcasm: :eyes:

**Sarcasm off**

Both New Orleans and San Francisco are two cities that are unique in this world, and integral parts of our American heritage. Of course we should rebuild, on that reason alone.

proof that humans don't cause earthquakes. There is proof that humans are causing catastrophic climate change that will raise sea level in a few decades (four or five is a few to me) to the point where NO will be inundated along with countless other coastal cities. What I'm saying is, should we spend billions rebuilding NOLA if we do nothing to prevent the sea taking the area in thirty or forty years?

I'll bet if earthquake science was as advanced in 1850 as it is now, there would have been some structural differences in San Francisco, too. Don't you?

take a geology course, even way back in the day, one of the first things we study is how the nerve gas containers caused all those earthquakes in denver

human activity can and does earthquakes

for that matter human activity can and does cause atomic bombs and yet hiroshima and nagasaki were rebuilt

most people don't find "oh woe" to be a useful approach to life's problems

that they do. Especially not the Great San Fran quake. You mentioned some interesting stuff I'll look into. Thanks.

it was in my first year geophysics text, not exactly top secret information

there used to be a classic chart published i believe by the usa army themselves showing how the army's storage of nerve gas around denver had greatly increased the number of earthquakes to that area

someone should really put the thing online

i know of no LARGE earthquake caused by human activity but no one wants to cause earthquakes, we want to stop them, and i seem to remember some speculation that causing smaller earthquakes to release tensions on fault lines might be a way to buy some time for california but don't know how far the usa explored this matter in recent decades, liability issues might make it an impossible area of study, which would be a shame if there was a good chance of success

so lets take out all the minorities, all the "ethnic" areas, and get some McMansions and strip malls and chain restraunts in there!

and my culture sanitized, generic, and the result of marketing meetings and focus groups.

you are going to find that rich people don't normally buy property in areas where they cannot buy insurance

i'm sure it will be a hell again for only the poorest of the poor, run by gangs who keep police on their payroll, with teens being shot dead every day, sometimes several of them in a shooting


oh wait it is already happening

aren't you glad those nasty rich people got chased away? even donald trump has pulled his project, altho he vowed in the days following katrina that he wouldn't -- the nonsense and the lack of planning has scared much hope of future investment away

you have what you want, nola will be a slum and misery forever -- only this time around a slum without any public hospital or public mental health services!

self righteous people suck, that's all i'm sayin, i wish everyone who wanted new orleans in poverty forever the same life for themselves -- and for their children

you wished ill for us so right back at ya

people who don't want money in new orleans need to seriously think about getting a clue and a conscience

just don't come bitching to me about how Republican the area has become.

Don't fuck with NOLA. :sarcasm: :hi:

Some of us are still pissed at the genocide that our government perpetrated down there. THAT is why they should rebuild it as many times as it takes. Never forget NOLA.

the major difference is that the Italians actually seem to have the political will to save their "treasure beyond price". People have been predicting that Venice (and Amsterdam) will "flood forever in a few years" for, um, quite a few years now, but their engineers keep finding ways to keep it from happening.

Fossil fuel consumption, it turns out, has had a two-pronged effect on south Louisiana: not only has the ensuing climate change increased the severity of storms, but the numerous canals that have been dug through the bayou country for oil and gas exploration have weakened the region's natural defense against storm surge.

These cities on the Gulf coast are just the beginning. The next two centuries will see lots of cities around the world forcibly relocated.

If federal tax dollars are going to fund rebuilding then we should have a say. Let's rebuild it in a safer location and bring all the residents back in. The federal government would take eminent domain over the spot chosen for the new city and resettle all former residents.