Environment: Unintended consequences

Environment: Unintended consequences

Postby guysanto* » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:26 am

Common Dreams - www.commondreams.org

Published on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 by the Baltimore Sun
<p align=justify><b>Unintended Consequences</b>
by Mike Tidwell

The Bush administration is ignoring reports from its own agencies that say every coastal city in America - from New York to Los Angeles - could become a New Orleans within a generation or two.

The flooding, storm damage, death toll and economic ruin we are seeing in the Crescent City could become an annual occurrence in some other U.S. city spread across some other American coastline.

Why? Because of the phenomenon known as the "law of unintended consequences." In Louisiana, we built huge levees that for centuries kept the lower Mississippi River from flooding. The unintended result was that the entire coast of Louisiana, including New Orleans, began rapidly sinking, dr
opping 2 to 3 feet in the last century alone.

Worldwide, a different dynamic but with similar catastrophic potential is playing out. Year after year, we burn massive amounts of fossil fuels - oil, coal and natural gas. The result is that we've profoundly warmed our planet's atmosphere. This global warming, according to the administration's own reports, will lead to a rise in sea level of 1 to 3 feet worldwide by 2100.

Here's the crux: Whether the land sinks 3 feet per century (as in New Orleans) or the oceans rise 3 feet per century (as in most of the rest of the world), the result is the same for America's 150 million coastal residents and the 3 billion shoreline inhabitants worldwide: record storm surges, inundated infrastructure, massive human relocation, economic disruption, untold suffering and death.

In all the recent coverage, the media seem to have uncritically accepted the very weird fact that New Orleans lies below sea level. Why is it below sea level?

Because of
the levees. The huge earthen river dikes that have kept the city dry and inhabitable for 300 years have also created the giant bathtub we now see on TV that is full of putrid water.

Every great river delta in the world is shaped by two unforgiving geological phenomena. The first involves flooding. The annual overflow of the sediment-rich Mississippi River is what created Louisiana's vast deltaic coast, depositing water-borne sediments and nutrients flowing down from two-thirds of America over the past 7,000 years.

The second major deltaic feature is "subsidence," or sinking. Those sedimentary deposits of alluvial soil are extremely fine and unstable. Over time, they compact, shrink and sink. Historically along the Louisiana coast, it was new flooding, new annual deposits of sediments, that counterbalanced the sinking and, in fact, led to net land building.

But by corseting the river with levees right out to the precipice of the Gulf of Mexico's continental shelf, we are left only wi
th subsidence. Every day, even without hurricanes, 50 acres of land in coastal Louisiana turns to water. Every 10 months, an area of land equal to Manhattan joins the gulf. It is, hands down, the fastest disappearing land mass on earth.

This is why the flooding from Katrina happened.

When French colonists first settled Louisiana 300 years ago, there were vast tracts of dense hardwood forests between what is today New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. There were extensive fresh water marshes and endless saltwater wetlands and a formidable network of strong barrier islands.

Today, all that land is essentially gone. It has turned to water. Because of the levees and the law of unintended consequences, New Orleans is a sunken, walled city essentially jutting out like an exposed chin toward the fast-approaching fist of the gulf. Had Katrina struck 200, 100 or even 50 years ago, the destruction would not have been the same. In 2005, there simply were no land structures left to slow Katrina's s
ledgehammer blow.

The good news is there is a plan to re-create much of that lost land. A detailed restoration scheme has been on the table since the 1990s to literally re-engineer the coast, according to Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco. The plan is to build up to a dozen dam-like control structures right into the levees of the Mississippi. These would then release the sediment-thick water into canals or pipelines that would surgically direct the liquid soil toward the barrier islands and the buffering marshlands that need immediate restoration.

This so-called "Coast 2050" plan will take many years to fully implement, but the cost is ridiculously cheap at $14 billion. That's just six weeks of spending in Iraq or the cost of Boston's "Big Dig." Yet tragically, like Louisiana's pre-Katrina requests for federal help to bolster insufficient levees in New Orleans, the Bush administration has spent more than four years repeatedly refusing even modest investments in the larger coastal res
toration efforts.

Given the horror of Katrina, one can only assume that President Bush will reassess his budgetary priorities. As a nation, our first responsibility is to address the storm's great humanitarian crisis. Beyond that, it would be criminally irresponsible of us to fix a broken window in New Orleans or pick up a piece of debris or repair a cubic foot of levee without simultaneously committing - as a nation - to the massive plan to rebuild the entire Louisiana coast. To do one without the other is to simply set the table for the next nightmare hurricane.

But even this multibillion-dollar coastal rehabilitation effort will be in vain unless we immediately address another facet of the law of unintended consequences: global warming.

Remove from your mind any thought that global warming is a junk theory peddled only by Greenpeace extremists. No less an authority than the Bush administration has confirmed this climate change to be real.

Soon after taking office in 2001, M
r. Bush asked the nation's premier scientific body, the National Academy of Sciences, to look into the issue. Its report to him: Global warming is happening, it's driven by our use of fossil fuels and one major consequence will be a 1- to 3-foot sea-level rise by 2100 from melting glaciers and the "thermal expansion" of the world's warming oceans.

Mr. Bush's 2002 "Climate Action Plan" drew the same conclusion: a 1- to 3-foot sea level rise by 2100. In an August 2004 letter to Congress signed by then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the administration again confirmed that fossil fuels are driving global warming, with all the implications for serious sea level rise.

A sea-level rise of 3 feet worldwide would mean battered and fragmenting barrier islands on a par with those sinking in Louisiana. It means vanishing coastal marshes, the need for massive hurricane and flood levees worldwide. It means vulnerable ports and other imperiled infrastructure. It also means the risk of massive human su
ffering, death and staggering displacement problems along every shore.

Just as levee repairs in New Orleans have been underfunded and barrier island restoration has been ignored, the administration refuses to join the rest of the world in pushing for greenhouse gas reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Repeatedly, Mr. Bush has refused to discuss even modest plans to address global warming while his own reports create the paper trail that future historians will use for what certainly will be harsh condemnations.

We don't need massive new levees to protect Miami. We need a rapid global switch to modern windmills for our electricity. We don't need sea walls to save San Diego. We need hydrogen fuel cell cars and energy-efficient appliances and bio-fuels.

The Kyoto Protocol is just too expensive for our country to adopt, Mr. Bush says, presumably the same way bolstering New Orleans' 17th Street Canal levee was once deemed too expensive. We're now spending tens of billions of dollars and
burying at least hundreds of people because of that mistake. How much will global warming cost us?

<br><br>
<i>
Mike Tidwell is the author of Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast. He lives in Takoma Park. </i>

© 2005 Baltimore Sun

User avatar
guysanto*
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2225
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm

Postby T-dodo » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:33 am

I think I can summarize overall Bush policies that way:" Dollars speak louder than common sense!"
T-dodo
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:32 pm

Postby Leonel Jean-Baptiste* » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:22 am

Guys, what do you think of the fact that they are dumping all the wastes from New Orleans into the Ocean?

This is contaminated water.

Washington is not thinking clearly as always!

This is a quick-fix mentality, dumping the very polluted water of new Orleans into the gulf is not wise...

What do you think?

leonel
Leonel Jean-Baptiste*
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:57 am

Postby Marilyn* » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:10 am

Leonel wrote:

This is contaminated water.

Washington is not thinking clearly as always!

This is a quick-fix mentality, dumping the very polluted water of new Orleans into the gulf is not wise..


Sadly, Leonel, Washington is thinking very clearly at this moment.

Remember, the name of the game is to keep the contracts [Halliburton, Shaw Group, Fluor, Bechtel, et al.] -- from which they and their friends personally benefit -- going on into infinity.

This is about them. Not about us.


With the current contract, they are ridding the streets of New Orleans of the contaminated water.

Part is going into Lake Ponchartrain; part is going into the canals feeding into the Mississippi River and the Gulf.

That's at least 4 more future contracts, right?

- One to decontaminate Lake Ponchartrain.

- One to decontaminate the canals.

- One t
o decontaminate the Mississippi.

- One to decontaminate the Gulf and restock the oyster beds and shrimp populations.

And on and on and on.


I read an interesting article this morning which speaks of this kind of thinking. It can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca ... _7533.html


Who Will Keep Us Safe From The Profiteers?

Bob Cesca

09.18.2005


Joe Allbaugh is back, and his stench is almost as powerful as the sludge that's being pumped into Lake Pontchartrain. The former FEMA chief and Bush crony who appointed Michael Brown to take over the agency and thus dooming the Gulf Coast to suffer through the most bungled disaster recovery effort in history, has gone on to bigger and more profitable ventures. Through his relationship with the president, he's helped to secure multi-million dollar contracts for his clients at Halliburton a
nd the Shaw Group.

But the motives that bind the administration, the profiteers, Allbaugh and the rest of the Bush cronies are almost too frightening and suspicious to consider.

Let's start by connecting the dots. It's easy. Bush and Joe Allbaugh are longtime friends. Allbaugh is a former Bush campaign manager and his former chief of staff in Austin. Bush appointed Allbaugh to run FEMA. Joe Allbaugh left FEMA and appointed a good friend and patently unqualified successor, Michael Brown, to take over. Joe Allbaugh went on to become a lobbyist for the Shaw Group and Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root. Brown bungled the Katrina effort so badly that it’s become a national disgrace. And the White House stammered its way through its response for weeks. And now, Allbaugh's Shaw and KBR are two of the primary government contractors hired to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

It's worth mentioning, too, another of Bush's cronies who's carpet bagging on the heels of Katrina. Bechtel has been given
the first of perhaps many contracts in the reconstruction effort and, not surprisingly, one of Bechtel's former CEOs and one of its current CEOs are both Bush appointees to government power positions.

The elephant in the room is rearing up on its hind legs -- smashing the walls and ceilings and collapsing the room around us. And the debris could be crushing us in the process. Why prevent a disaster when there's significant profits to be made by ignoring it?

This notion can partly be derived from that infamous equation used by automotive manufacturers: if the cost of a recall is greater than the cost of an insurance settlement, then there's no recall and the deadly chips are allowed to fall where they may. Profit outweighs safety. Period. And human lives are lost. The same motives can be superimposed onto Big Pharma. Why should pharmaceutical companies find cures, when there's more money to be made from the symptoms associated with keeping people sick? After all, wouldn't a cure for cancer n
egate the business model for a company which, say, manufactures chemotherapy drugs?

We all know that the motivating factor for any business is profit. Or maybe we missed the big announcement that corporations with direct effect on human lives are now -- voila! -- suddenly more concerned with humanitarian goals than with keeping their employees and shareholders in the black. (And it's no coincidence that the Bush administration is known as the CEO administration, partly because of how it’s managed, and partly because, we can only assume, they give billions in business to a lot of CEOs.)

In this case, if a company like Allbaugh's clients Halliburton and Shaw can earn billions of dollars from a disaster (free money from you and I) then why would their buddies in the White House want to bend over backwards to prevent such catastrophes?

They don't. And that could be why, four years after 9/11, the readiness and response on the part of Bush's federal government was deplorable. Could it be
that profit outweighed safety? Other than gross incompetence and criminal negligence, what else could it be? It'd be naive not to at least explore this as an answer.

The Shaw Group, for example, just announced two contracts worth $200 million -- half from FEMA and half from the Army Corp of Engineers. Halliburton's KBR is initially receiving over $29 million to rebuild military bases in and around the region. Added up, Allbaugh's friendship with Bush is worth nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to his corporate clients in the Gulf alone. And that's just for starters. In Iraq, Halliburton has earned $9 billion in government contracts. Audits have shown that nearly $1.5 billion of that paycheck is unaccounted for.

They could hire local contractors, but we haven't heard anything about any large contracts going to the New Orleans-based roster of independent firms. It's not like they're difficult to track down. A simple Google search yielded hundreds of independent contractors in the New Or
leans area alone: construction contractors, medical contractors, and demolition contractors to name a few of the essentials.

For those of us who can see and understand what might be going on, it's an horrific prospect: corporations and politicians somehow allowing human harm in order to reap a financial windfall. However, for those of us who can't see it, I can only suggest a challenge: try to think like a corporation.

CEOs and executives think only in terms of profit and nothing else, both as a means of preserving their company and, hence, their livelihood. In many ways, that's great. It's the American way. It's their job. However, "it's their job" (Bush loves to tell us about "his job") is both the upside, in a personal well-being sense, and the catastrophic downside in a global sense.

It's a Big Tobacco CEO's job to sell cigarettes -- no smokers, no cigarette sales. It's a Big Pharma CEO's job to sell drugs -- no sick people, no drug sales. It's a Fast Food CEO's job to k
eep us loaded up with transfatty acids, triglycerides, and high fructose corn syrup. It's a Corporate Ag CEO's job to load up our beef with steroids and antibiotics in order to sell a better cut of meat while polluting our bodies with toxins. And it's an Automotive CEO's job to weigh out which decision (recall or lawsuit) will offer the best savings. The best savings! Why aren't we drinking clean water, breathing clean air, driving safer and more economical vehicles, and eating food free of mercury and growth hormones? If it meant a better bottom line, we would be.

So it's no stretch to hypothesize that perhaps a so-called CEO administration, with powerful friends in the private sector, might not deliver on their promise to keep us safe from a disaster (or to be wholly incompetent in the relief effort) in order to manufacture more profit-making scenarios for themselves and their cronies.
Marilyn*
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:42 pm

Postby guysanto* » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:46 pm

Marilyn, that article is very clear, and worth reading over and over.

What a frightening prospect!

People in the U.S.A., wake up!
User avatar
guysanto*
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2225
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:32 pm


Return to 2005

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron