Welcome to Gaia! ::

Now this may be a touchy subject, but I want everyone to know that I'm not trying to offend anyone.
Just an article I read off my text book and I wanted to share it with everyone.

Dams, Deltas, Wetland, Hurricanes, and New Orleans.
(Science, Economics, and Politics)

Coastal deltas, mangrove forests, and coastal wetland provide considerable natural protection against flood damage from coastal storms, hurricanes, typhoons, and tsunamis.
Remove or degrade these speed bumps and sponges, and the damage from a natural disaster such as a hurricane or typhoon is intensified. As a result, flooding in places like New Orleans, Louisiana, the U.S. Gulf coast and Venice, Italy are largely self-inflicted unnatural disasters.

We have built dams, and levees to control water flows and provide electricity along most of the world’s rivers. This helps reduce flooding along rivers.
However, this reduces flood protection provided by the coastal deltas and wetlands found at the mouths of rivers because the naturally sinking deltas do not get inputs of sediment to built them back up.

As a result, most of the world’s river delta’s are sinking rather than rising and their protective coastal wetlands are being flooded. This helps explain why the U.S city of New Orleans, Louisiana, which flooded in 2005 is 3 meters (10feet) below sea level and in the not to distant future will probably be 6meteres (20feet) below sea level.
Add this to the destruction or reduction of the protective effects of the coastal wetlands, mangrove forests, and barrier islands and you have a recipe for a major unnatural disaster.

To make matters worse, global sea levels have risen almost 0.3meters (1 foot) since 1900
and are projected to rise 0.3-0.9 meters (1-3 feet) by the end of the century. Most of this projected rise is due to the expansion of water and melting ice caused by global warming-another unnatural disaster helped along by our burning of fossil fuels and clearing of large areas of the world’s tropical forests.

Governments can spend hundreds of billions of dollars building or rebuilding higher levees around cities such as New Orleans. But some scientists warn that sooner or later increasingly stronger hurricanes and typhoons will overwhelm these defenses and cause even greater damage and loss of life.

For example, much of New Orleans is a 10 foot deep bathtub or bowl. According to engineers, even if we build levees high enough to make it a 20 foot bathtub a category 5 hurricane and rising sea levels will eventually overwhelm such defenses and lead to a much more serious unnatural disaster.

The good news is that we now understand some of the connections between dam’s, deltas, wetlands, barrier islands, sea level rise and hurricanes. The Question is whether we will use such ecological and geological wisdom to change our ways of suffer the increasingly sever consequences of our own actions.

Discussion:
Do you think that a sinking city such as New Orleans should be rebuilt and protected with higher levees or should the lower parts of the city be allowed to revert to wetlands that help protect nearby coastal areas?
Explain.


Please remeber to respect eachothers opinons.

well the people kenw that it was under sea level but they still lived there and to some people its home but to me i would just forget it cause it will probley flood again and the people will just keep wasteing money and rebuilding it so im going to have to say that they should for get it and move on

I was raised in a town that is 4 feet below sea level (Charleston, SC) and I know the emotional attachment that I have to the city. However, N.O. is shaped like a bowl and is bound to be flooded again if another large hurricane hits it. Unless they can build levees large enough to ensure that the money is not once again wasted and MAINTAIN the levees properly, the part of N.O. that is most likely to flood again should be left to be reclaimed by the natural environment.

lol
and here I was thinking I was going
to have some backlash for this thread.

^_^

If it was my home I would nor put myself back into a possible hazzard, not would I want to put my family or children in such a hazzard or anyone for that matter.


It's not that I don't understadn it was people's home and that it's all some people knew, what I don't understand is why you want to live somewhere where your life will be in danger.
The same reason I don't understand why people live in Tornado Valley.
At least in Tornado Vally you can live into the ground - but people don't rebuilt efficiently - That really is the problem - but it's a problem because most people can't afford it.

Why are you going to build your house back up the same way when you know the same thing is going to destroy it in a matter of time.
If your going to live in NO you better know that something like this will happen again and .... you won't have my sympathy.
Sorry, if it happened the first time and you didn't know about the geological hazzards of the area, not your fault - but going back and rebuilding knowing the possible hazzards is just silly.

NO was lucky that it even lasted as long as it did.

Times are changing, things don't remain the same - nothing ever does.
And to lose something that is ALL you KNEW in life, then that's an open door for you to open your mind to new and perhaps even more exciting possibilities.

I don't have a doubt in my mind that NO was a great city and that there are pleny of reasons people want it build and that it is a part of our history, but I think we need to accept it's reality and move on.

NO will still be there, but the part that is under sealevels should be allowed to revert to wetlands - the way nature would of wanted it.

You can never win when it comes to nature.

Why do people live where they do? Well, they love it. It is familiar and something they, well, we feel comfortable. A lot have no where else to go. All they can do is pick up the pieces and try anew.

Why do you live where you do?

People are afraid of change and the unfamiliar. I was moved to Suffolk, VA against my will. I am glad it happened, but I didn't wanna do it because I didn't know the area, or the people or what it would be like. It was a hard adjustment, and I am still adjusting. I hate it and want to go somewhere familiar. It is home. I hope no one has to experience what it feels like to lose a home. And those that do know, I am sorry you have to feel what that feels like.

I do not want sympathy nor do I want pity because it does no good. My choices are just that, mine.

Well thats ok to want to rebuild to be familiar- but like shaodw coon said, don't use my tax dollars.

I'm not one to stay in the familiar.
I like changes, and if my home was destroyed, (which is has in the past)

I'd be ok with that and I'd look foward to what lies ahead.

I'm guess I just don't understand that wanting to go back to the "same" I don't understand why you can't make a safer place familiar.

I can compare it to eating the same foods cuz they are familiar or wearing the same clothes cuz they are comfertable.
Eventually your going to try new things with food, and your most deffinatly going to buy new clothes.

Maybe that wasn't a good analogy...but...well...



I mean you know your living in a high risk area. So if something were to happen you can't be surprised.

Your right there really is no safe place.
But perhaps safer than NO...most definatly.

The problem with that, is that most people don't have the money to rebuild.
And you can't just rebuild back the way you had it - if your hoping to get anykind of insurance support. And really you shouldn't rebuild exactly the way you had it, you should try to rebuild more efficianly...
Insurances are only letting you build back if your house is built on pillars.
Which most people really just can't afford - keeping in mind that the places that were destoyed the most was were fairly modest people were living.