Where is the environmentalist outcry over hurricane Katrina?

[Zecryphon]

I was wondering today, why I haven't heard any outrage from groups like the Sierra Club and the Protect Our Wetlands group, over the devastation to the environment caused by hurricane Katrina. Usually, when there's an environmental disaster they're on the scene, protesting, pointing fingers and blaming everyone. If only people had listened to them, this (whatever disaster it happens to be) never would have happened. But where are they now? Strangely silent aren't they?

I said in another thread that the Sierra Club was responsible in large part to the disaster in New Orleans because the sued the Army Corps of Engineers to stop their reconstruction of over 300 miles of levee system, claiming it would destroy the wetlands and wipeout the black bear population. This I think was disregarded in large part because I heard about the story on the Fox news channel and confirmed it at www.nationalreviewonline.com. Jack from Kickasspodcast basically said that when people have to resort to those two places as sources of reliable information, it's just sad.

It turns out that while I was browsing the web, I came across another similar story about a plan that would have worked better than the one proposed by the Corps of Engineers in the 90's that was blocked with a lawsuit by the Sierra Club in 1996. The same lame reason was given, destroying the wetlands, fish, animals etc. etc. When Sierra won that suit the Corps had to stop their renovations.

You can read about the Sierra Club lawsuit in the 90's at www.nationalradioonline.com and type in Greens vs. Levees


You can read all about the Barrier That Could Have Worked at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation

I don't think the LA Times can be called an evil right wing conservative think tank do you? I know I've never thought of them that way, and I'm a member of the Reform party, because I'm sick of both the Republicans and Democrats. I can't really tell a difference between the two anymore. After reading the aforementioned stories, I think the environmental groups are directly responsible for this disaster happening and should now foot the bill, not the American taxpayer or the federal government. Why, should we pay to clean up their mess? Now, anyone who wants to disagree with me, feel free to. This is just my opinion based on facts.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jimk]

There's plenty of blame to go around, but trying to pin it all on environmentalists is a stretch. Basically the levee system has ruined the Delta region, and that goes back a lot further than any environmental group.

The area was NEVER designed to be contained. It's SUPPOSED to flood, that's how a flood plain works. We're not supposed to be there. Period. Instead we've forced a lot of water to do things water doesn't want to do with hundreds of miles of channels and walls and pipes and pumps. Without the flooding and subsequent silt deposits...well, you see the results.

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by jimk

There's plenty of blame to go around, but trying to pin it all on environmentalists is a stretch. Basically the levee system has ruined the Delta region, and that goes back a lot further than any environmental group.

Well that's true. But my question still remains. Shouldn't they be upset about all the damage? Shouldn't we have heard something like we have in other disasters, the Exxon Valdez for example. They love to get tons of media attention when others, especially capitalists are at fault. My point is, they know they're largely to blame, and that's why they're staying quiet. They're hoping this story won't get too much attention and they can silently ride this one out. The sad thing is though, that they won't take anything away from this. They won't have learned that sometimes they need to listen to other people who know what they're talking about. They also won't have learned that when you make bad decisions there are consequences. They should help foot the bill and the know it, and they won't. I have no sympathy for people who knowingly endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of people with their actions and then when a horrific tragedy strikes like this one, they're nowhere to be seen or coming forward and taking responsibility.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[jeffoest]

So... so you have a positive recommendation / solution to throw on the table for discussion or are you just trying to blow off some stream about some "group" you don't particularly like?

If the devastation you are talking about is the pumping of the horribly chemical and disease-laden water back into Lake Pontchartrain and subsequently out to the Gulf, I don't think there is anybody that likes that. Especially the Gulf Oyster Industry. But I haven't seen any reasonable alternatatives proposed. Cleaning all the water that will be pumped out would take months and billions of dollars. There is benefit to move along quickly. The sooner you get New Orleans populated, the quicker these folks will start getting their city, their blocks, their houses, repaired and cleaned up properly. I think people, environmentalist or not, our sort of resigned to this solution as the only one that is really possible.

BTW - I WILL not be eating Gulf-water oysters or shellfish for awhile....

[podcastshuffle]

I heard someone from the Sierra Club on public radio today. I don't remember who it was but I think it was one of the directors. He was basically saying that they were disappointed that the dirty water wasing being pumped back into the lake since the lake had been a success story for environmentalists.

Mainly was disappointed that prior to the hurricane the state was getting ready to open some of the beaches for public swimming (guess they were polluted already). He didn't seem critical of the EPA's decision to dump all the sludge though.

I think everybody realizes that you can't wait to filter the water since that would destroy more of New Orleans, harm more people, etc. Also there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to put the dirty water.

Jeff

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by jeffoest

So... so you have a positive recommendation / solution to throw on the table for discussion or are you just trying to blow off some stream about some "group" you don't particularly like?

I thought when I put links to the news stories I was addressing in my post/thread that people who post in the aforementioned thread would actually click on the links and do a little reading. I can see from your response Jeff that you did not do that. I'm not gonna lie to you, I have issues with the environmental movement, mainly because their solutions for protecting the environment, only protect the environment that animals live in, not human beings.

If you had read the articles I provided links to, you would know that in 1977 the Army Corps of Engineers had a plan in place to build a structure that would have prevented the levees from breaching, and we would not have this huge mess on our hands now. The Corps however was prevented from building that structure due to a lawsuit filed by environementalist groups who were worried about fish and bears and whatever other animals happened to leap to mind.

Now as pointed out by Jimk, to place all the blame on environmental groups is a stretch. But I believe when you go back and do some research you will find that they are largely responsible. My question still remains, why are they so quiet? Unless they were in fact, largely responsible for setting up a scenario that favored the protection of animals and wetlands intead of human beings. I believe they should help pay for the mess they worked so hard to create. Granted this current situation was not their intention, but they've shot themselves in the foot. I can't imagine animals or wetlands faring too well with the current situation.

BTW - I WILL not be eating Gulf-water oysters or shellfish for awhile....

I don't blame you.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[Zecryphon]

The sooner you get New Orleans populated, the quicker these folks will start getting their city, their blocks, their houses, repaired and cleaned up properly. I think people, environmentalist or not, our sort of resigned to this solution as the only one that is really possible.

Do you really think that rebuilding New Orleans is a good idea? Those people live in a bucket basically. The place, as jimk explained, floods constantly, it's supposed to do that. Why would people who have now unfortunately been given the chance to leave, want to return? If you're going to rebuild, do it elsewhere. Don't repeat the same mistake.

I just can't justify paying for something that we all now know is going to fail. The expense is just too great, and I'm not only talking about money here, no more lives should be lost by making the same mistakes all over again. People are not supposed to live there. There's plenty of money and room in this country. We could relocate these people to safer regions, instead of rebuilding a city in a bucket and hoping it won't flood again.

Your Brother in Christ,

Zecryphon

[AaronfromQC]

So here you are talking that crazy nonsense again huh? I thought you'd learn from before that you didn't know what you are talking about but then again, you didn't. Sorry to hear that. But I have to say, I agree with you man. Get rid of the enviromentalists and let business decide what's best for the environment. They've done such a great job so far so why not trust them whole heartedly. Who wants our country to look like Canada, all that beauty is overrated. So man, you are awesome and thanks for bringing this **** up again.

[jeffoest]

I think that some of New Orleans will certainly be built up again. Especially areas such as the French Quarter, St. Charles ave and some of the historic regions that are in the relatively higher parts and where it makes renovation economic sense. Also, there will most likely continue to be major port activity around that area - which is why a city was established at NO in the first place.

Now - will it be as large as a city as it was? That remains to be seen. I suppose it depends on the amount and economic ROI's or rebuilding and also on any modern schemes for better protection if availalble and there is a cost / benefit of doing it. Dunno... stay tuned I suppose.

Living by the river has always been a high risk / high return kind of proposition. I grew up along the Mississippi River (in Illinois). Farmers get the best farmland along the flood plains for the very reason that they flood naturally every few years. On the other hand, every few years those farms are ruined. So does it make sense to completely abandon that land because every few years it floods? Clearly not - since it's the best and most fertive farm land. But the risks are well known and documented and there are ways to work within the restrictions of nature.

As far as blaming the environmentalists. I guess I just think that's kind of an easy blame. Sure, decisions were made that had bad consequences. I truly believe that most people's ambitions regarding those decisions were well intended and not evil. We must learn from them and make smarter pro-active uses of new knowledge and new technolgies to figure out how best to utilize natural geographical assets in the light of environmental concerns and human safety. I truly believe that if smart people can address these problem without pointing large generalalizations at various groups, we can move forward and make better decisions that will benefit all of us.

[Hittman]

We encourage people to build on flood plains by bailing them out every five or seven or ten years they get flooded out. If, instead, we let private insurance deal with it, the free market would solve much of the problem – there wouldn’t be many houses there.

Building a city under sea level might make sense if land is rare, but less than 3% of the land in the US is developed.

I love New Orleans. It’s a very, very cool place, with lots of personality. But the job of keeping it dry shouldn’t belong to the feds – it should belong to the people at risk of getting wet. I don’t blame the feds when my street doesn’t get plowed in the winter – because it’s not their job. Local government takes care of it, and that’s the way it should be. From a purely theoretical standpoint, I don’t think it should be the feds job to keep the levies healthy, and in place.

And from a purely practical standpoint, we have just been handed irrefutable proof that they suck at the job.

There is a lot of blame to go around. Yep, environmentalists should get some. The feds should get quite a bit. The mayor, who seems like a nice guy, was completely incompetent. The governor was worse. Bush was complacent.

Zec, you seem to want to blame this entirely on the tree huggers. While there’s little doubt that they share some of the blame, they are not the only ones at fault, or even the primary culprits.

How about the people who chose to live below sea level? Shouldn’t they have some of the blame too? They put themselves in a known, dangerous situation, just by being there.

I think the best solution will be to get the feds out of it entirely. Finish rescuing the people, get the first layer of sludge cleaned out, and then leave it up to the landowners and insurance companies to fight over what comes next. That’s the best way to get the best cost/risk/reward ratio.