Jim Sharkey wrote:
I am generally a "believer" in global warming, but you're citing a city below sea level, situated on the hurricane-prone gulf, whose commerce lifeblood eroded what protections the terrain had provided, as a counterargument to the point that the poor are more concerned about eating than conservation? I would argue that in NO's case, many of Diamond's other factors for disaster had as much, if not more, of an impact as any overall climate change in the case of the Katrina disaster.
First of all, no one is arguing that anyone is _more_ concerned about ecology than eating. The argument is; are they worried about eating to the exclusion of any kind of ecological concerns. Secondly, because other factors played a part in the disaster does not mean that NO residents are not cognizant of the one factor that not only could continue to haunt them in the form of storms but that in fact could doom their city altogether due to rising sea levels. Third, you may recall that hurricane Rita, a second cat 5 storm was on a path very similar to Katrina and actually did hit Western Louisiana. So while one 100 year storm in a season might not fuel the imagination too much, the prospect of a second hitting shortly after the first had to have given the residents there food for thought.
I just disagree with Alberto's statement that ecology is for rich people. Bangladesh is one of the poorest nations in the world and is most vulnerable to rising sea levels. Do you think that they’ll be shouting "Jobs, not dry land?"
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
