Michael G. wrote:

I suspect that the real area of concern is that there is no guarantee that what almost happened to Houston (and did happen to New Orleans) won't happen again in a month or next year or the year after that and the year after that...

But no one can say that it seems.

 

It seems that what is not disputed is that the warmer ocean temperatures increased the intensity of the hurricanes. So far the argument is whether they are more frequent. Given Katrina and Rita were both 100-year storms arriving within 30 days of each other, and climatologists warn that another major storm may be brewing off west Africa to come ashore in October, that argument may be mute by Thanksgiving.

 

On that note, I think New Orleans will be rebuilt – once. If we continue to see more natural disasters linked to climate change, we will be looking at more serious and widespread long-term reevaluations.

 

The Great Game got much more intense after Katrina and Rita. Domestically, Congress will rush to fund nuclear plants and drilling, neither of which would relieve the capacity problem in the next 10 years. Smart money is on a Manhattan-style project to develop alternative fuels to supplement traditional resources and a national conservation plan, which saves much more and faster than anything else we could do.

 

If Congress breaks free of the fossil fuel lobby, we could see a renewed interest in rail. The airlines are going to be in further jeopardy.

Regional economists and planners have more reasons than ever to review development plans that strengthen local economic networks, especially for food. “Food miles” are already becoming critical in economies of scale, as the consumer’s purchasing power declines. Wal Mart’s warning on upcoming earnings has more than a few worried.

 

If a diversified energy formula is not computed quickly, it won’t matter whether we have a short or longer recession, or even if the Iraqis achieve a ratified constitution and elect their first independent legislature, and avoid regional war. It will be guns vs butter very soon. Bush has lost the battle for hearts and minds in continuing his war in Iraq. 

 

Americans don’t buy Bush’s Iraq war as a means for democracy. The war in Iraq has left Americans skeptical about the use of military force as a tool to spread democracy, according to a poll released on Thursday.  Seventy-two percent of those questioned said the conflict has made them feel worse about the use of military force "to bring about democracy" down the road, compared to only 20 percent who said it made them feel better about such a prospect, the survey found.

It also found that nearly three of every four Americans believe overthrowing Iraq's government and trying to establish a democracy in its place was not a good enough reason to go to war there. The survey did not address the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 

"Most Americans do not appear to have been persuaded by President George W. Bush's ... argument that promoting democracy is a critical means for fighting terrorism and making the world safer," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes, a research group affiliated with the University of Maryland, which worked with the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.

(source: Associated Press via http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050929/pl_nm/iraq_poll_dc)

 

 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to