h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Here's a nasty thought. Louisiana, as a state, voted to elect George Bush in both the 2000 & 2004 elections. Of course, if you look at the county results, New Orleans itself voted against him...

So basically, the poor people who are now suffering, voted against the leader who ultimately made the wrong decisions, which lead to this disaster.

While the richer people, who live in the suburbs, and/or could flee, voted for him.

The people who are less likely to be educated made the better decision. The people who are more likely to be well educated made the wrong decision.

>> The people who are less likely to be educated made the better decision. The people who are more likely to be well educated made the wrong decision.

Right and wrong in this context meaning what, Ste?

"Hasn't there been a natural disaster of some kind or another, at some point or another, in the entire history of mankind, at every known habitable location of man? So by the logic used here, since there have been disasters at all these locations, aren't we all stupid for living where we live now?"

Possibly, but some risks are more likely than others or less easy to cope with when they do happen than others. I'm in a fairly safe spot, as far as I know (unless the Bog of Allen decides to give way underneath me!).

TRiG.

Hm? Who, me?

Oh, I think Dealer was talking about voting for Bush or not.

Who was it said that more and more British houses are being built on flood plains? That is of course true. Never buy a house on a housing estate with 'Mead' in the name.

But it isn't just a matter of not buying houses on a flood plane or builders not building on flood planes, it is also a matter of local authorities not giving planning permission for houses to be built on flood planes.

These are public servants, who are paid to make decisions which promote the public good.



Isn't it more usual that you start out angry with politicians and end up accepting the status quo. I wish that was true for me. As the years go by I become more and more enraged with those we elect to govern us, and those we pay to administrate that government.

B

Ste, you are right it was Dealer.

I was trying to work out whether he meant right and wrong in moral terms or right or wrong in terms of voter self-interest. Or in some other way.

B

good point B.

At first I meant right/wrong in terms of "overall socio-economic well-being".

But I think it would also apply to self-interest. if you're a rich person from New Orleans, yeah, you benefited big time from the tax breaks. But would that compensate for having your assets, business, and home destroyed? Even if you're getting insurance money, it's a major life-trauma to have everything destroyed. So I think right/wrong also applies to "voter self-interest".

As far as the rest of the state goes, they all voted for Bush anyway. If New orleans is destroyed, their state becomes greatly impoverished - so again, I think voter self-interest applies. Although in for this case (of the non-New Orleans counties) it wasn't just the rich voting for Bush.

Actually, if you study the floodplain that forms much of Bangladesh and that that forms the area around New Orleans, very little is different.

Dykes or lvees built to prevent water from entering New Orleans and surrounding communities are not designed to deal with water that enters from behind the dykes or levees from breeches elsewhere or from high rainfall inland of the dykes of levees. Where dykes or levees might have prevented water from entering from the river side, they also prevent water contained inside from escaping.

Unfortunately, as with the dykes in Bangladesh, the levees of New Orleans and the Mississippi Delta were built at a time when population and industry hadn't boomed. More and more land was "reclaimed" and much of that was below the flood-level. Natural channels have, like Bangladesh, have become shallower and mean that water which could have been channelled out is no longer able to.

In the case of the Bangladesh flood prevention scheme, the project built dykes to prevent waters from the annual flooding of the Ganges, Jamuna and Meghna rivers from innundating the coastal and deltal communities. Instead, the waters either breeched the embankments or entered through areas not thought to have required embankments and became trapped behind the embankments. Because the areas behind the embankments were lower than surrounding lands, the water had no where to go but in and, in some places, remains trapped behind the embankments.

This is, essentially what has happened in Louisiana.

It seems to me, from your explanation, that the dykes/levees in Bangladesh built to try and prevent flooding were ineffective and actually made things worse by containing flood water. Right?

Now, New Orleans existence would not be possible if it were not for the levees that had successfully existed for a very long time. What is keeping the water in New Orleans is not the levee system, but the failiure of the levee system (because of underfunding and resultant poor maintenance) which kept the below-the-water bowl of a city dry. The water has equalised with the surrounding bodies of water and will not escape until it is pumped out.

I don't think one applies to the other.

Ste

I think the other thing to throw into the mix is the impact on race relations in the US of Americans and the world watching a city of poor, black people being left to starve.

*Crazy gun laws - New Orleans appears to be descending into Mad Max-like anarchy*
I would say that is the culture of violence and guns rather than the laws. Other countries have little or no gun restrictions but usually don't revert to anarchy during natural disasters. The other aspect is that New Orleans has an enormous *have not* population (which for historical reasons is mostly black) which would generally have no compunction to steal when needy or to lash back at what are seen as inequities.

*Building a city between the sea and a lake and below the level of both of them - How frigging dumb is that?*
Ask the French. In 1718 a Mssr. Bienville founded the City of New Orleans at the present site because of easy access to the Mississippi River through Lake Pontchartrain and Bayou St. John. The city was 'owned' by France. The city was built on the fact that it floods- the Old Quarter was not flooded this time and most of the city was protected by levees that have been in need of the Army Corps of Engineers since Clinton's time. The money just didn't seem important enough since New Orleans hasn't flooded since 1965. Lake Pontchartrain's pollution and the disasterous dredging there seemed more important. A good friend of mine lives in the Bayou to the West of New Orleans. The storm barely missed him but he built his house on 8 foot stilts decades ago, a norm for that area.

*Concentrating so much of the oil industry in such a vulnerable place...Once again, when all the oil is going to run out in 30 or so years' time, how frigging stupid is that?*
The US economy depends on oil and there is not going to be sudden switch to alternate energy sources. It's clear that the public must be gradually weaned from oil and in the meantime, that is just where it happens to be and where it is economically sensible to refine it.

*Lack of disaster planning*
See above and add the fact that quite simply it is the end of summer there and the last long weekend before school starts. As silly as that sounds it has a great deal to do with the availability of personel.

*I could go on, but the final straw was seeing that the richest nation on the planet is asking for donations to relieve what was actually a man made disaster.*
I tend to disagree and would like to point out that for all the problems and mistakes of the present administration the US is historically far and away the highest contributer in money and materiel both in total and per capita when disasters happen in other countries. I have no problem returning the favour.

Actually, most of the populated areas are created behind man-made barriers in precisely the same way that the populated areas have spread out across the Mississippi Delta by digging out areas, using the earth to create walls. In both areas there have been various flood-prevention plans. In the Mississippi Delta, since the 1960s (which is actually an extension of a project begun before the Civil War) the U.S. Corps of Engineers have been building extensive levees to protect the flood-prone communities in exactly the same way that have recenty been done in projects in Bangladesh. The only real difference is that in Bangladesh, their government doesn't have the money to keep he embankments up and in the US, while the money is there, there has not been the will to maintain them or to continue building. In some cases, communities have been waiting for decades for the levee project to make its way to them. http://epw.senate.gov/107th/Robinson_061802.htm

In the case of Bangladesh, the only study done on land-use and flood patterns was done about 50 years ago and, since then, the population has expanded and land is overused. Various projects, usually created by NGOs and using western expertise without a complete understanding of local conditions and based on the outdated plan have come and gone, usually with the same spectacular failure rate.

One problem in both places has been that the building of extensive levees or embankments ensures that funneling of the river through the man-made channels raises the speed and height of floods and increases the potential damage of breaks in the embankments. In Bangadesh, one community will tear down the embankments of another to prevent flooding of their own when flooding causes swollen waters to race between the embankments.

Both river deltas feature fast, powerful rivers which would, under normal circumstances create an ever-changing delta. Like the Nile, man-made controls have caused the natural flood-pattern which deposits fertile soil on a yearly basis to stop. Pollutants, pesticide, sewage aside, the channels which would normally be deep and wide and constantly changing, become clogged with silt and when a flood does come, these channels can no longer handle the mass of water.

In both cases, where people whould normally live well inland and use the everchanging flat-lands to farm on a seasonal basis, huge populations now live in precisely the place where the river should be.

Of course... no situation is completely identical. However, the lessons learned in most places where the natural deltas have become inhabited, man tries to "tame" the untameable and loses. Both the Mississipi Delta and the Bangladesh deltas are like enough.

clZ - I got the impression that if I asked the French the answer would be that they had built on the higher ground.

Historically, and we are seeing it in this country too with the houses built on floodplains, we are building on increasingly marginal land.

I got the impression that the French Quarter wasn't actually that flooded in comparison with the more modern parts of town.

Whata sparked my original post was the claim that this was a natural disaster with the implication that it was unpredictable and unavoidable.

I am putting forward the point of view that there is a huge amount that responsible local and national government could have done to prevent or mitigate this before the event. Just as there is a huge amount that responsible local and national government could do to prevent or mitigate the effects of the Big One when it comes in California. As I've said elswhere, if I lived in California I would be lobbying to find out a lot more about the disaster recovery plans which that state have in place.

B

In the letter section of the Jackson Citizen Patriot (Jackson, Michigan, birthplace of the Republican Party), someone lamented today about how those other countries that usually receive US aid are not giving aid to the US in our time of need. There's absolutely no context about the US being one of the richest countries, or that public monies given to aid other countries are a much lower fraction of GDP than other industrial nations usually give, plus it ignores the fact that many other countries really are pledging money, including extremly poor countries. Plus we're turning away aid from Cuba and Chavez and wherever else.

People can't even check their facts before putting it down on paper and proving their ignorance.
http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1126280121225880.xml&coll=3

Unfortunately the people who are suffering and need contributions are not the ones who planned the system, demanded crazy gun laws, built their city in a vulnerable place, reduced resources for FEMA or hired a pal with a fictional resume to run FEMA.

Actually the nice thing in spite of all the horror stories of looting and violence is the opposite story: that people are working together to help each other, that it's beautiful and necessary for people to help each other (aka socialism), and that it's idiotic to think we can prosper in this world if we ignore people who need help (aka dog-eat-dog "free" market capitalism). Major disasters in the US like Mississippi floods and the Dustbowl may have influenced voters to put FDR in power, and this disaster may do it again. People will see that giving tax breaks to rich people never trickles down to anyone else, and it's time to reconsider everything Reagan and Bush and Bush have told us about "compassionate conservatism" in light of its catastrophic failures.

Unfortunately. SOME news organizations seemed to have missed the REAL facts about the "lack of support" coming from other countries:

F110768?thread=988719

In fact, Indonesia also sent money and supplies, in gratitude for the support after the tsunami. Fortunately, there are those who HAVE noticed. In fact, there are some who noticed that aid came from other nations before Washington finally woke up and smelled the sewage.

"Actually the nice thing in spite of all the horror stories of looting and violence is the opposite story: that people are working together to help each other, that it's beautiful and necessary for people to help each other (aka socialism), and that it's idiotic to think we can prosper in this world if we ignore people who need help (aka dog-eat-dog "free" market capitalism)."

The problem is hardly that America isn't socialist (and the idea that this disaster is going to make them so is preposterous), it's that America has considered itself a strong, efficient country that can deal with any disaster and this hurricane has shown it to be a house of cards as prone to uselessness as any third-world state. If this is going to do anything, it's going to make Americans demand more efficiency, accountability and planning from their government - plenty of "what do we pay our taxes *for*?" rhetoric.

"I think it's an unimaginable scientific stretch to relate global warming to Katrina. Apparently, based on the posts here, it's not an unimaginable political/diatribe one."

Dealer, whilst I agree that the "global warming caused hurricane Katrina" argument is both scientifically dubious and hysterical, would you not agree that it's possible that global warming might have made the disaster *worse* and that proper, scientific, analysis of the phenomenon and sober discussion and what can and should be done about it would be a good idea?

<<"would you not agree that it's possible that global warming might have made the disaster *worse*">>

Sea level rises perhaps? But they seem small in comparison to the volume of water the hurricane lifted. Other than a direct cause like that, no. Its a meaningless historical what-if. Even if you did try something like taking what data you had and changing the temperature 0.8 C down (making the huge and almost certainly incorrect assumption that a change global average temperature correlates to this specific hurricane, or to hurricanes in general), its odds on that whatever change the maths predicted for that would be very different to the reality.

Was there not talk about higher temperatures in the gulf of Mexico affecting the hurricane?