Coasting Along
First, a little political note:
Kudos to Matt Lauer for leading the Today Show news off, pointing out that it's really a matter of saying Palin has 'ownership' of the word lipstick, to accuse Obama of using the phrase 'lipstick on a pig' as abusing Palin - and asking if 'we should really be discussing this'. Then a clip of McAyn using the same phrase.
Thanks also to Brian Williams for last night's news report on the lie that Palin's claims to having refused Bridge to Nowhere funding, selling the gubernatorial jet on eBay, and firing the chef, in actuality are. Thanks to CBS morning newsteam for giving the lie to the Bridge to Nowhere claim this a.m.
It would have been nice to hear the word "LIE", of course, but that's asking a lot of media that has until now given McAyn's false claims and flipflops a pass.
*****************************************************
Much of the news that I've been listening to as Ike bears down on the Texas coast mentions that our population increasingly is concentrated along the coasts. I never hear this without remembering a friend in Chincoteague, Virginia, pointing out to me that although he went along with his customers who wanted to build expensive homes along the ocean, that he was a lifelong resident on the tidal island. His home was located in the center of the island, on an improved rise in the land, fortified against inrushing tides.
Again and again, Florida is being noticed for its intensive development, and the losses of insurance companies when they venture to provide coverage. As V for Virginia points out in comments at Eschaton, that coverage is increasingly prohibitive. Assurance insurance payouts will be needed to rebuild becomes insistently clear along the coast there, .
The coast is generally conceeded to be increasingly at risk by those who recognize global warming and the receding ice at the poles. It seems a good idea to start thinking about relocating to safer areas, or leaving the outlying areas threatened by receding coast lines to the intrepid and uninsured thrillseekers. The op-ed caught my eye this morning that proposes that consideration in redevelopment of much loved New Orleans.
After two quiet seasons over the Atlantic, hurricanes are once again assailing our southern coastlines. While Gustav mostly spared New Orleans, it applied full force to the Cajun country of western Louisiana. And more hurricanes are approaching each week.
As the waters recede, we will encounter a rising tide of demands for federal money to construct ever larger defensive works in coastal areas. Congress is already entertaining demands for a $14 billion coastal restoration program and an $11 billion levee along the coast line west of New Orleans.
It is time to ask whether pouring billions of dollars into massive coastal fortifications makes sense. It may be time to consider whether some areas should be abandoned and left to the inexorable forces of rising sea levels and ever more intense storms.
More than 90 percent of the delta, within the area south of Interstate 10, lies less than 3 feet above sea level. The sea level is predicted to rise 3 to 4 feet this century, due to global warming. And the spongy sediments of the delta are compacting and sinking about a foot per century, due to oil extraction, sediment retention in upstream dams and various other causes.
Add these numbers, and the conclusion is unavoidable – most of the lower delta, about 10,000 square miles, will likely be under water within this century.
Confronted with these realities, the Corps of Engineers and Louisiana leaders are upping the ante with a grandiose concept called "The Great Wall of Louisiana." The Great Wall, 70 to 100 feet tall, would parallel the shore line all the way across Louisiana to Port Arthur, Texas.
The Great Wall of Louisiana might hold off some storms for the next few decades. But at what cost? The wall would spell catastrophe for Louisiana's vital fishing economy; it would effectively destroy the rich delta wetlands, dividing the waters between open ocean on one side and biologically impoverished lagoons on the other.
There is no possibility that abandonment of New Orleans isn't going to be offensive to a lot of U.S. citizens that see it as part of our heritage, and a great one. So are coastal areas like Key West and Chincoteague, Long Beach and Long Island. What part of maintaining them in the face of increasing threats, though, should be a shared responsibility?
Just as saving ANWR is vital for environmental considerations, so is realism in use of our land. The author of today's op-ed is Bruce Babbitt, long known for his realistic assessment of land use. I think he ought to be heard, and I don't have any plans to locate next to the ocean. My dear friend who did, has had her home of less than one year flooded, losing many lifelong treasures.
Kudos to Matt Lauer for leading the Today Show news off, pointing out that it's really a matter of saying Palin has 'ownership' of the word lipstick, to accuse Obama of using the phrase 'lipstick on a pig' as abusing Palin - and asking if 'we should really be discussing this'. Then a clip of McAyn using the same phrase.
Thanks also to Brian Williams for last night's news report on the lie that Palin's claims to having refused Bridge to Nowhere funding, selling the gubernatorial jet on eBay, and firing the chef, in actuality are. Thanks to CBS morning newsteam for giving the lie to the Bridge to Nowhere claim this a.m.
It would have been nice to hear the word "LIE", of course, but that's asking a lot of media that has until now given McAyn's false claims and flipflops a pass.
*****************************************************
Much of the news that I've been listening to as Ike bears down on the Texas coast mentions that our population increasingly is concentrated along the coasts. I never hear this without remembering a friend in Chincoteague, Virginia, pointing out to me that although he went along with his customers who wanted to build expensive homes along the ocean, that he was a lifelong resident on the tidal island. His home was located in the center of the island, on an improved rise in the land, fortified against inrushing tides.
Again and again, Florida is being noticed for its intensive development, and the losses of insurance companies when they venture to provide coverage. As V for Virginia points out in comments at Eschaton, that coverage is increasingly prohibitive. Assurance insurance payouts will be needed to rebuild becomes insistently clear along the coast there, .
The coast is generally conceeded to be increasingly at risk by those who recognize global warming and the receding ice at the poles. It seems a good idea to start thinking about relocating to safer areas, or leaving the outlying areas threatened by receding coast lines to the intrepid and uninsured thrillseekers. The op-ed caught my eye this morning that proposes that consideration in redevelopment of much loved New Orleans.
After two quiet seasons over the Atlantic, hurricanes are once again assailing our southern coastlines. While Gustav mostly spared New Orleans, it applied full force to the Cajun country of western Louisiana. And more hurricanes are approaching each week.
As the waters recede, we will encounter a rising tide of demands for federal money to construct ever larger defensive works in coastal areas. Congress is already entertaining demands for a $14 billion coastal restoration program and an $11 billion levee along the coast line west of New Orleans.
It is time to ask whether pouring billions of dollars into massive coastal fortifications makes sense. It may be time to consider whether some areas should be abandoned and left to the inexorable forces of rising sea levels and ever more intense storms.
More than 90 percent of the delta, within the area south of Interstate 10, lies less than 3 feet above sea level. The sea level is predicted to rise 3 to 4 feet this century, due to global warming. And the spongy sediments of the delta are compacting and sinking about a foot per century, due to oil extraction, sediment retention in upstream dams and various other causes.
Add these numbers, and the conclusion is unavoidable – most of the lower delta, about 10,000 square miles, will likely be under water within this century.
Confronted with these realities, the Corps of Engineers and Louisiana leaders are upping the ante with a grandiose concept called "The Great Wall of Louisiana." The Great Wall, 70 to 100 feet tall, would parallel the shore line all the way across Louisiana to Port Arthur, Texas.
The Great Wall of Louisiana might hold off some storms for the next few decades. But at what cost? The wall would spell catastrophe for Louisiana's vital fishing economy; it would effectively destroy the rich delta wetlands, dividing the waters between open ocean on one side and biologically impoverished lagoons on the other.
There is no possibility that abandonment of New Orleans isn't going to be offensive to a lot of U.S. citizens that see it as part of our heritage, and a great one. So are coastal areas like Key West and Chincoteague, Long Beach and Long Island. What part of maintaining them in the face of increasing threats, though, should be a shared responsibility?
Just as saving ANWR is vital for environmental considerations, so is realism in use of our land. The author of today's op-ed is Bruce Babbitt, long known for his realistic assessment of land use. I think he ought to be heard, and I don't have any plans to locate next to the ocean. My dear friend who did, has had her home of less than one year flooded, losing many lifelong treasures.
Labels: Global Warming, Insurance Companies, The Environment
posted by Ruth at 9:00 AM
1 Comments:
As someone who lives on the coast of the Chesapeake Bay, it's easy for me to understand the attraction of living next to a large body of water. Artificially limiting development near oceans a rivers, although economically justifiable, limits those beautiful locations to the rich and very rich.
I am not against a reasonable limits on development and withdrawing support from vulnerable areas, but the policy cannot be another way give yet another advantage to the rich.
Post a Comment
<< Home