National Geographic article about New Orleans (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
Inkspot47 said:
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0708/feature1/


A good long article that I dont think has been posted yet.
Click to expand...


Yeah Garland on WWL radio had an interview with a Senior NGM rep and while garland had some good points the National geographic Rep was stern with his answers and careful he also had alot of good points, but what he kinda went blank on when garland brought up the fact that The US Depends on Louisiana for a 5th of it's natural and Crude oil to supply the country and it would cost Probably in the Trillions if nothing is done and The wetlands are allowed to continue to vanish leaving New Orleans Vulnerable to being wiped off the Map completely if another storm hits it in the next 40-100 years.

Right now they are estimating it'll cost about 50 to 60 Billion and if they start now it could possibly be lower, right now pipe line "Thousands of pipe is exposed and could be hit by ships or anything else and could be hard to get to eventually.

Congress /Bush have yet to get anything laid down and signed, there seems to be a question in Congress weather they should even bother Putting Money into New Orleans.
Alot of Reps haven't done any research to find how The Country is Benefiting from the existence of New Orleans other than it's Ports that can easily be moved somewhere else like Texas.

The National Geographic rep feels the sticker shock should effect the congress, it's weather or not to even bother rebuilding and from what alot of strong research shows, if New Orleans Rebuild the same way it has been for decades after major storms, The next one could be the Final Straw and be the Nail in the coffin to seal the Deal, Congress is looking out for the best interest of the US Tax payers, When New Orleanians are ready to Change things money will come soring into town!
New Orleans could be build bigger and Better and be the Gem in the Gulf if The City is Up for change, They would have to allow for Huge Dams, even Higher Razing Ordinances and Complete Infrastructure change along with possibly Changing the Entire Foot print of New orleans, the 9th ward would have to be turned into mostly green space so commercial and residential can survive.


New Orleans.. you really need to sit and think about the future if you want the city to be backed by the rest of the country, It's either Stick to your old ways and fend for yourself or Be Open for change and Get a Huge Helping hand, You have to stop trying to be your own Damn Country and Be a part of Every other American City now.
 
I kinda stopped reading the article after the global warming comment. :rolleyes:

As for the oil infrastructure - I guess the big companies are worried (Now!) about what effect the sinking of the marshes is having on their pipeline systems, etc. It would be MUCH cheaper for the wetlands to be restored and those systems maintained - than pulling up stakes and moving the operation elsewhere. There really is no other 'elsewhere' to go!

Garland missed a great point, though. They talked about the amazing engineering feats these oil companies accomplish. How about letting THEM restore Louisiana's wetlands. It's not like they didn't have a hand (understatement) in damaging them in the first place!!! Sounds like a win-win. Oil companies have the biggest investment and the most to lose if (when) the wetlands disappear. Combined with their superb engineering talent and record profits - hey, get to work!!!
 
SharonT said:
I kinda stopped reading the article after the global warming comment. :rolleyes:

As for the oil infrastructure - I guess the big companies are worried (Now!) about what effect the sinking of the marshes is having on their pipeline systems, etc. It would be MUCH cheaper for the wetlands to be restored and those systems maintained - than pulling up stakes and moving the operation elsewhere. There really is no other 'elsewhere' to go!

Garland missed a great point, though. They talked about the amazing engineering feats these oil companies accomplish. How about letting THEM restore Louisiana's wetlands. It's not like they didn't have a hand (understatement) in damaging them in the first place!!! Sounds like a win-win. Oil companies have the biggest investment and the most to lose if (when) the wetlands disappear. Combined with their superb engineering talent and record profits - hey, get to work!!!
Click to expand...


i agree. They cut the canals which broke the marshland up like crackercrumbs. They laid the pipeline. It would stand to reason that they perform the maintenance, regardless of who holds the lease. Not just maintenance of the pipeline. Maintenance of whatever is protecting the pipeline.

If i damage leased property i am responsible for restoring it to original condition.
 
gaminerie said:
If i damage leased property i am responsible for restoring it to original condition.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to figure out exactly how much of the wetlands the oil companies are responsible for losing, when you factor in levee-building, natural erosion, etc. But the fact remains that oil companies have a LEGAL responsibility to fix what it destroys. When these companies started dredging canals through the marshland, at that time everyone thought it was ok because the wetlands were viewed by many people as a wasteland. But their mistakes shouldn't be our burden. Politicians/citizens simply aren't holding these companies responsible at all.....I suppose because they're so powerful monetarily and politically.

But with regards to that article: I haven't read it, partly because the question "Should New Orleans Be Re-Build" frankly is insulting.

I hate it when people talk about possibly "wasting Americans' tax dollars" on New Orleans when, if we redirected tax money that is already uselessly being spent elsewhere in the world, it probably wouldn't cost the American people any more.
 
Broadmoor74 said:
It's difficult to figure out exactly how much of the wetlands the oil companies are responsible for losing, when you factor in levee-building, natural erosion, etc. But the fact remains that oil companies have a LEGAL responsibility to fix what it destroys. When these companies started dredging canals through the marshland, at that time everyone thought it was ok because the wetlands were viewed by many people as a wasteland. But their mistakes shouldn't be our burden. Politicians/citizens simply aren't holding these companies responsible at all.....I suppose because they're so powerful monetarily and politically.

But with regards to that article: I haven't read it, partly because the question "Should New Orleans Be Re-Build" frankly is insulting.

I hate it when people talk about possibly "wasting Americans' tax dollars" on New Orleans when, if we redirected tax money that is already uselessly being spent elsewhere in the world, it probably wouldn't cost the American people any more.
Click to expand...

i've read it now and i don't see it as asking that question, not even in a provocative way. The title of the article is "New Orleans: A Perilous Future." The only time the article goes there is in the second-to-last paragraph, and then the answer given is the answer i think any of us would give. "No-brainer."

If anything, the article is an indictment of the Corps of Engineers.
 
Last edited:
The cover reads "Should we rebuild New Orleans?".......or a variation of that (I don't have a copy with me). That's what I was referring to.

We also made the cover of Time Magazine. I have a copy but have not had the time to read it yet. The cover reads: Special Report: Why New Orleans still isn't safe. Two years after Katrina, this floodwall (photo of pathetic looking levee and floodwall) is all that stands between New Orleans and the next hurricane. It's pathetic. How a perfect storm of big-money politics, shoddy engineering and environmental ignorance is setting up the city for another catastrophe.
 
Broadmoor74 said:
The cover reads "Should we rebuild New Orleans?".......or a variation of that (I don't have a copy with me). That's what I was referring to.

We also made the cover of Time Magazine. I have a copy but have not had the time to read it yet. The cover reads: Special Report: Why New Orleans still isn't safe. Two years after Katrina, this floodwall (photo of pathetic looking levee and floodwall) is all that stands between New Orleans and the next hurricane. It's pathetic. How a perfect storm of big-money politics, shoddy engineering and environmental ignorance is setting up the city for another catastrophe.
Click to expand...


Oh, well, if i let myself get worked up about the media making money and journalists gaining fame and prizes and selling books on the backs of our misfortune, i'd be all mad all the time.

There's a lot of truth in that article, even if it hurts. but it is mostly about the levee system and the MRGO and how people who are there, are adamant about being there, and are not going to give up.
 
gaminerie said:
Oh, well, if i let myself get worked up about the media making money and journalists gaining fame and prizes and selling books on the backs of our misfortune, i'd be all mad all the time.

There's a lot of truth in that article, even if it hurts. but it is mostly about the levee system and the MRGO and how people who are there, are adamant about being there, and are not going to give up.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
Broadmoor74 said:
Amen.
Click to expand...

i just think that's an important message to get out there to the national/international audience.

That people in New Orleans are not just a bunch of fools who had the power to build/repair their own levees, and just diddled around.

That the clearance to build in low areas came with the ringing endorsement of city zoning administrators, planners, and investors, with developers "laughing all the way to the bank" as this article does point out.

A lot of things i see make me really mad, but i force myself to at least skim them just so i know what people around me are being fed about New Orleans. i need to know what points are going to be brought up, so that i am ready to refute them.

If people in Pennsylvania and Virginia and California read stuff like this and remember what it was like for them in their "safe" areas when they were washed out by a flood, and consider whether THEY wanted to pick up and take their chances in a "safer" place (as if anyplace is "safe"), it might get some understanding out there.
 
Last edited:
From the first page of the article

The long odds led Robert Giegengack, a geologist at the University of Pennsylvania, to tell policymakers a few months after the storm that the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation on the globe was helpless to prevent another Katrina: "We simply lack the capacity to protect New Orleans." He recommended selling the French Quarter to Disney, moving the port 150 miles (240 kilometers) upstream, and abandoning one of the most historic and culturally significant cities in the nation. Others have suggested rebuilding it as a smaller, safer enclave on higher ground.

But history, politics, and love of home are powerful forces in the old river town. Instead of rebuilding smarter or surrendering, New Orleans is doing what it has always done after such disasters: bumping up the levees just a little higher, rebuilding the same flood-prone houses back in the same low spots, and praying that hurricanes hit elsewhere. Some former New Orleanians may have had enough. More than a third of the city's pre-Katrina population has yet to return. Those who have face deserted neighborhoods, surging crime, skyrocketing insurance, and a tangle of red tape—simply to rebuild in harm's way.
Click to expand...

Thanks National Geographic.

Sheesh.

I'd also really like to read an article in a major publication that does not rely almost entirely on Professors Bea and Van Hjeerdan. The last time Bea was written up in NG, he cupped a handful of standing water from the street in the Ninth Ward near the floodwall and declared that it must've seeped through the floodwall because it was "salty."

Articles like this paint the bleakest picture possible, eroding confidence among those that are here and giving ammo to those that would just as soon shove us off the OCS and into the Gulf.
 
Mr. Sparkle said:
From the first page of the article



Thanks National Geographic.

Sheesh.

I'd also really like to read an article in a major publication that does not rely almost entirely on Professors Bea and Van Hjeerdan. The last time Bea was written up in NG, he cupped a handful of standing water from the street in the Ninth Ward near the floodwall and declared that it must've seeped through the floodwall because it was "salty."

Articles like this paint the bleakest picture possible, eroding confidence among those that are here and giving ammo to those that would just as soon shove us off the OCS and into the Gulf.
Click to expand...

What about those two paragraphs is not true?

Later on the article talks about how people can do just fine in Broadmoor. Which is probably also true.

Giegengack's suggestion, in print, looks as ridiculous as it must have sounded when he first proposed it. i think it was put into the article to highlight what a ridiculous suggestion it is.

People are going to build what they are going to build, where they are going to build it. PARTICULARLY with no master plan, two years out.

At issue is the infrastructure. When the levees hold (paragraphs are dedicated to how the Corps tried to sneak sand and shell back into those levee repairs), and the pumping stations work, things are a lot different than when they don't.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom