Perhaps, if a rational planner was active and able to direct events, the "city in the sky" may come to pass. How else to put the populace back into an area which is below sea level in large part and so vulnerable to increasing fury of storms, sea level rises and tidal surges?
Everything up 20 metre stilts and let the water just flow through when it really has to. Perhaps even create a "venice of the Americas" - the Dutch used to do this pretty well for example. Err. America, rational planner...? Damn. I was having such a nice snooze too... Malcolm (we're OK 250 feet above sea level on what would become an island in the Cotswold Archipelago. Now, how to we keep those pesky 7 million Londoners, and 6 million Birminghamers, not to mention the population of the Thames Valley - Oxford, and so forth - off our nice little series of islands? Fishing will be superb though, once the ecology settles a bit. On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 20:15 -0700, Karen Watters Cole wrote: > I ran across this late today, wish that I’d seen it earlier this week > to reference comments and discussion here and elsewhere. kwc > > > > There is a brief history lesson and some perspective on the question > of should New Orleans be rebuilt. Dr. Friedman makes a few statements > with which I take issue, regarding damage to oil rigs and refineries, > but this was written early and his vagueness is understandable. > Hopefully, a regional reconstruction mobilization will be launched > soon that would make FDR and the Japanese and Germans proud. Likewise, > I hope we will draw on the lessons of the Marshall Plan as well as > Asian and European experience as we devise this massive redevelopment > project. > > > > And it’s been on my mind since Lawry mentioned the moral sins of our > misadventure in Iraq: the huge and complex economic, environmental and > sociocultural impacts of the loss of this major US city, by natural > disaster, should make Americans appreciate how much the ‘shock and > awe’ of the bombing of Baghdad and the invasions of Falluja and Tal > Afar have had on the Iraqi psyche and country. With armed soldiers > patrolling streets and commerce stopped, utilities and infrastructure > damaged, looting and fire decimating historical markers, businesses > and homes, doctors working under great restriction, families separated > and dispersed, the press being censored for body counts, innocents > lost and lives changed forever, we are ‘walking a mile’ in the shoes > of Iraqis who faced a very different storm. > > > > That reminds of another discovery from earlier this week: > > When armies are mobilized and issues joined, the man who is sorry over > the fact, will win. -- Lao-Tzu (c.604-c.531 B.C.) > > > > > New Orleans: A Geopolitical Prize > By George Friedman, STRATFOR , Thursday 01 September 2005 > > The American political system was founded in Philadelphia, but the > American nation was built on the vast farmlands that stretch from the > Alleghenies to the Rockies. That farmland produced the wealth that > funded American industrialization: It permitted the formation of a > class of small landholders who, amazingly, could produce more than > they could consume. They could sell their excess crops in the east and > in Europe and save that money, which eventually became the founding > capital of American industry. > > But it was not the extraordinary land nor the farmers and ranchers who > alone set the process in motion. Rather, it was geography - the > extraordinary system of rivers that flowed through the Midwest and > allowed them to ship their surplus to the rest of the world. All of > the rivers flowed into one - the Mississippi - and the Mississippi > flowed to the ports in and around one city: New Orleans. It was in New > Orleans that the barges from upstream were unloaded and their cargos > stored, sold and reloaded on ocean-going vessels. Until last Sunday, > New Orleans was, in many ways, the pivot of the American economy. > > For that reason, the Battle of New Orleans in January 1815 was a key > moment in American history. Even though the battle occurred after the > War of 1812 was over, had the British taken New Orleans, we suspect > they wouldn't have given it back. Without New Orleans, the entire > Louisiana Purchase would have been valueless to the United States. Or, > to state it more precisely, the British would control the region > because, at the end of the day, the value of the Purchase was the land > and the rivers - which all converged on the Mississippi and the > ultimate port of New Orleans. The hero of the battle was Andrew > Jackson, and when he became president, his obsession with Texas had > much to do with keeping the Mexicans away from New Orleans. > > During the Cold War, a macabre topic of discussion among bored > graduate students who studied such things was this: If the Soviets > could destroy one city with a large nuclear device, which would it be? > The usual answers were Washington or New York. For me, the answer was > simple: New Orleans. If the Mississippi River was shut to traffic, > then the foundations of the economy would be shattered. The industrial > minerals needed in the factories wouldn't come in, and the > agricultural wealth wouldn't flow out. Alternative routes really > weren't available. The Germans knew it too: A U-boat campaign occurred > near the mouth of the Mississippi during World War II. Both the > Germans and Stratfor have stood with Andy Jackson: New Orleans was the > prize. > > Last Sunday, nature took out New Orleans almost as surely as a nuclear > strike. Hurricane Katrina's geopolitical effect was not, in many ways, > distinguishable from a mushroom cloud. The key exit from North America > was closed. The petrochemical industry, which has become an added > value to the region since Jackson's days, was at risk. The > navigability of the Mississippi south of New Orleans was a question > mark. New Orleans as a city and as a port complex had ceased to exist, > and it was not clear that it could recover. > > The ports of South Louisiana and New Orleans, which run north and > south of the city, are as important today as at any point during the > history of the republic. On its own merit, the Port of South Louisiana > is the largest port in the United States by tonnage and the > fifth-largest in the world. It exports more than 52 million tons a > year, of which more than half are agricultural products - corn, > soybeans and so on. A larger proportion of US agriculture flows out of > the port. Almost as much cargo, nearly 57 million tons, comes in > through the port - including not only crude oil, but chemicals and > fertilizers, coal, concrete and so on. > > A simple way to think about the New Orleans port complex is that it is > where the bulk commodities of agriculture go out to the world and the > bulk commodities of industrialism come in. The commodity chain of the > global food industry starts here, as does that of American > industrialism. If these facilities are gone, more than the price of > goods shifts: The very physical structure of the global economy would > have to be reshaped. Consider the impact to the US auto industry if > steel doesn't come up the river, or the effect on global food supplies > if US corn and soybeans don't get to the markets. > > The problem is that there are no good shipping alternatives. River > transport is cheap, and most of the commodities we are discussing have > low value-to-weight ratios. The US transport system was built on the > assumption that these commodities would travel to and from New Orleans > by barge, where they would be loaded on ships or offloaded. Apart from > port capacity elsewhere in the United States, there aren't enough > trucks or rail cars to handle the long-distance hauling of these > enormous quantities - assuming for the moment that the economics could > be managed, which they can't be. > > The focus in the media has been on the oil industry in Louisiana and > Mississippi. This is not a trivial question, but in a certain sense, > it is dwarfed by the shipping issue. First, Louisiana is the source of > about 15 percent of US-produced petroleum, much of it from the Gulf. > The local refineries are critical to American infrastructure. Were all > of these facilities to be lost, the effect on the price of oil > worldwide would be extraordinarily painful. If the river itself became > unnavigable or if the ports are no longer functioning, however, the > impact to the wider economy would be significantly more severe. In a > sense, there is more flexibility in oil than in the physical transport > of these other commodities. > > There is clearly good news as information comes in. By all accounts, > the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP), which services supertankers in > the Gulf, is intact. Port Fourchon, which is the center of extraction > operations in the Gulf, has sustained damage but is recoverable. The > status of the oil platforms is unclear and it is not known what the > underwater systems look like, but on the surface, the damage - though > not trivial - is manageable. > > The news on the river is also far better than would have been expected > on Sunday. The river has not changed its course. No major levees > containing the river have burst. The Mississippi apparently has not > silted up to such an extent that massive dredging would be required to > render it navigable. Even the port facilities, although apparently > damaged in many places and destroyed in few, are still there. The > river, as transport corridor, has not been lost. > > What has been lost is the city of New Orleans and many of the > residential suburban areas around it. The population has fled, leaving > behind a relatively small number of people in desperate straits. Some > are dead, others are dying, and the magnitude of the situation dwarfs > the resources required to ameliorate their condition. But it is not > the population that is trapped in New Orleans that is of geopolitical > significance: It is the population that has left and has nowhere to > return to. > > The oil fields, pipelines and ports required a skilled workforce in > order to operate. That workforce requires homes. They require stores > to buy food and other supplies. Hospitals and doctors. Schools for > their children. In other words, in order to operate the facilities > critical to the United States, you need a workforce to do it - and > that workforce is gone. Unlike in other disasters, that workforce > cannot return to the region because they have no place to live. New > Orleans is gone, and the metropolitan area surrounding New Orleans is > either gone or so badly damaged that it will not be inhabitable for a > long time. > > It is possible to jury-rig around this problem for a short time. But > the fact is that those who have left the area have gone to live with > relatives and friends. Those who had the ability to leave also had > networks of relationships and resources to manage their exile. But > those resources are not infinite - and as it becomes apparent that > these people will not be returning to New Orleans any time soon, they > will be enrolling their children in new schools, finding new jobs, > finding new accommodations. If they have any insurance money coming, > they will collect it. If they have none, then - whatever emotional > connections they may have to their home - their economic connection to > it has been severed. In a very short time, these people will be making > decisions that will start to reshape population and workforce patterns > in the region. > > A city is a complex and ongoing process - one that requires physical > infrastructure to support the people who live in it and people to > operate that physical infrastructure. We don't simply mean power > plants or sewage treatment facilities, although they are critical. > Someone has to be able to sell a bottle of milk or a new shirt. > Someone has to be able to repair a car or do surgery. And the people > who do those things, along with the infrastructure that supports them, > are gone - and they are not coming back anytime soon. > > It is in this sense, then, that it seems almost as if a nuclear weapon > went off in New Orleans. The people mostly have fled rather than died, > but they are gone. Not all of the facilities are destroyed, but most > are. It appears to us that New Orleans and its environs have passed > the point of recoverability. The area can recover, to be sure, but > only with the commitment of massive resources from outside - and those > resources would always be at risk to another Katrina. > > The displacement of population is the crisis that New Orleans faces. > It is also a national crisis, because the largest port in the United > States cannot function without a city around it. The physical and > business processes of a port cannot occur in a ghost town, and right > now, that is what New Orleans is. It is not about the facilities, and > it is not about the oil. It is about the loss of a city's population > and the paralysis of the largest port in the United States. > > Let's go back to the beginning. The United States historically has > depended on the Mississippi and its tributaries for transport. Barges > navigate the river. Ships go on the ocean. The barges must offload to > the ships and vice versa. There must be a facility to empower this > exchange. It is also the facility where goods are stored in transit. > Without this port, the river can't be used. Protecting that port has > been, from the time of the Louisiana Purchase, a fundamental national > security issue for the United States. > > Katrina has taken out the port - not by destroying the facilities, but > by rendering the area uninhabited and potentially uninhabitable. That > means that even if the Mississippi remains navigable, the absence of a > port near the mouth of the river makes the Mississippi enormously less > useful than it was. For these reasons, the United States has lost not > only its biggest port complex, but also the utility of its river > transport system - the foundation of the entire American transport > system. There are some substitutes, but none with sufficient capacity > to solve the problem. > > It follows from this that the port will have to be revived and, one > would assume, the city as well. The ports around New Orleans are > located as far north as they can be and still be accessed by > ocean-going vessels. The need for ships to be able to pass each other > in the waterways, which narrow to the north, adds to the problem. > Besides, the Highway 190 bridge in Baton Rouge blocks the river going > north. New Orleans is where it is for a reason: The United States > needs a city right there. > > New Orleans is not optional for the United States' commercial > infrastructure. It is a terrible place for a city to be located, but > exactly the place where a city must exist. With that as a given, a > city will return there because the alternatives are too devastating. > The harvest is coming, and that means that the port will have to be > opened soon. As in Iraq, premiums will be paid to people prepared to > endure the hardships of working in New Orleans. But in the end, the > city will return because it has to. > > Geopolitics is the stuff of permanent geographical realities and the > way they interact with political life. Geopolitics created New > Orleans. Geopolitics caused American presidents to obsess over its > safety. And geopolitics will force the city's resurrection, even if it > is in the worst imaginable place. > > http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopolitics_katrina.php > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
