Scylla’s point seems to be “Bush is not in charge of the weather, how can you blame Bush?” and so he’s waiting for someone to make that specific distinction. Childish of him, but that appears to be what he’s getting at.
The evidence of dereliction of duty seems pretty clear to me. New Orleans’ precarious situation was well publicized over the last few years, from stories on NPR to articles in Scientific American. I’m not an expert in flood control, and I live far from Louisiana; nevertheless I was well aware of the danger the city faced. Presumably the experts knew how grave the matter was for far longer.
No one expects the President to stop a hurricane. But given such a serious and well-publicized threat to our nation one would expect a LEADER to take at least some minor steps to protect against it. Say, for example, modestly INCREASING the budget for maintaining the levees rather than DECREASING it. Nothing heroic … just something better than neglect and wishful thinking.
Imagine a local city council receives a report that the guardrails on a major bridge are rusted through. “An accident waiting to happen,” the chief of the department of transportation says. But instead of voting funds to have the bridge repaired, the council cuts maintenance instead. A few years later a bus crossing the bridge swerves out of control, crashes through a guardrail and plunges into the river, killing everyone on board.
The city council can’t stop buses from crashing. But they should damn well make sure that the local guardrails are kept in good repair.
This thread has shifted to discussing flood control build improvement of levees, floodwalls
and pumping stations. While this is very interesting (especially Exploding Kitchens
long and carefully researched post) I’d like to say that the German Umwelminister only
mentioned things like CO2 reduction, oil consumption and the fact that Americans
supposedly are responsible for 1/4 of the emission of greenhouse-gases.
Not a word about the specific situation in NO or the cutting back of SELA.
**Exploding Kitchen **
This is the pti. I was hoping for some creative swearing - otherwise I’d put that in GD.
That said: carry on.
This is the pti.
Or maybe not. Could be the pit, too.
I never understood this argument. It’s a scapegoat argument. Americans are to blame for the overabundance of CO2 emissions, yet the flip side of that is never discussed.
Oil is now, and will remain until the day there is no more to be had, a resource with high demand. If Americans were to drive more fuel efficient vehicles the demand for oil would not diminish, it would simply shift to other countries. Those countries would in turn burn oil and emit the same pollutants. The worldwide volume of pollutants would continue to increase, the only difference is that the oil would last longer. Maybe.
All consumers of oil bear responsibility for a certain amount of pollution, and while I accept your numbers for the purposes of this discussion they are irrelevant because they don’t matter. In the end the oil will be gone, the pollution will be proportional to the consumption, and it doesn’t make any difference where the pollution comes from because ultimately humanity itself will bear the responsibility, not one single country.
Maybe I was unclear on that: these are not my numbers but Jürgen Trittins.
Obviouisly, Bush allowed New Orleans to be flooded so we could fight the looters on their ground rather than in Washington, D. C.
Bush is NOT “my guy”. Just because I’m tired of hearing everything blamed on him by moronic, brainless invertebrates like you doesn’t make him “my guy”. It would behoove you to stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a Republican.
The levees as such are in a bad way. The whole idea needs to be scrapped. The problem is, that New Orleans cannot continues to grow in the way it has. It’s in the wrong place, and it’s high time someone told them that. They keep tearing up all the natural features that used to protect the river, and then expect someone else to pay to protect them now. Plus, the levee system has dangerous failure consequences. It will screw up soonr of later, and it’s better to reorganize things now.
In short, New Orleans has screwed up the river and they can’t keep doing that.
So your answer to “Got any rebuttal at all of the post right above your last, Ashtar?” would be No?
No wonder you’re tired. All this thinking stuff is hard. Hard work.
Well, just thought you’d like to know that Pilsner Urquell is owned by SABMiller. The SAB stands for South African Breweries Ltd. Were you drinking Urquell before 1990? Does this mean you support Apartheid, duffer? 
Actually, SABMiller didn’t get a majority interest in Pilsner Urquell until 1999, so you’re in the clear there. However, it does point out how stupid it is to boycott German beer because of something Jürgen Trittin, or some other German politician might have said. Trittin is a pretty radical Green, and not all that popular in Germany. His party will probably lose the new elections in a few weeks, and he will no longer be a minister.
Also, the Pilsner Urquell brewery was founded by Germans (note the German word “Urquell” in the name) as were most breweries in Bohemia (which was German at the time), so you’re not really giving 100% here. You’d better switch to Anheuser-Busch. What? Founded by Germans too? Damn, I guess you’re stuck with Coors then. Either that or Belgian beer. Personally I’d prefer Belgian!
Adolph Coors came from Germany, too. Stella Artois it is, then. 
Well, I guess it’s a good thing the Germans haven’t given up on you. It’s also sad that many Americans think calling Germans “Nazi scum” or calling for Germany to be “nuked” is a valid response to Trittin’s stupidity. Here’s a cite for the “Nazi scum” and “nuked” comments (check out the fifth paragraph).
Please note that I agree completely that what Trittin said is extremely stupid, but then he is not known for being one of the brightest bulbs in Schröder’s cabinet.
I just do not follow your reasoning. What makes you think that, if Americans were to drive more fuel efficient cars, people in say France or New Zealand would suddenly start driving gas guzzlers?
It seems roughly the same as saying that if Americans suddenly start watching less television, people in Germany will start watching more. It just does not follow.
I do agree that humanity as a whole (or at least developed and developing nations) need to be more responsible, but one cannot escape the fact that the US is a disproportionate polluter.
No. What I’m saying is that if we were to cut our usage to 75% of what we are currently using the rest of the world would step in and claim that 25% reduction for itself. Oil is what makes the world go round, and demand will remain high until it is all gone.
Nope. Completely different. No society can function without fuel. Television is a luxury, not a necessity. Germans can watch 200% more television and it will have no effect on anybody else’s television usage. On the other hand, if the United States used 25% less oil the usage by other countries would increase to eat up that excess.
Only because we have the distinction of using the most oil. As I said, the amount of pollution would not change if we cut our oil usage, it would just go somewhere else, and the net amount of pollution would remain generally the same. Oil burns the same in Europe and Japan as it does here, and the byproducts are the same.
New Orleans has survived for those 300 years precisely because the officials in charge have done things like build and maintain levees, pumping stations, etc. As the city grew and the dynamics of the watercourse changed these measures needed to be adapted or increased to continue to provide protection from these types of events. The sinking of the levees built by previous officials was a recognized danger. The recent Federal budget cuts lowered the amount of levy maintenance and FEMA warned that decreasing the amount of money/work being put into maintenance of the watershed controls would leave the city at significant risk. The government, primarially the Feds, gambled on no major hurricanes hitting the area until the work was complete while simultaneously extending that window of opportunity.
Hurricane Katrina would have made landfall exactly where it did no matter what any President or Appropriations Committee did. It would not have dropped a single picoliter of water less had the politicians made different decisiont. Nonetheless, the indications are that the damage would have been far, far less had the warnings of FEMA been taken seriously and the work on the levees and other watershed controls continued with their original timelines and requested budgets.
Enjoy,
Steven
So if every country in the world cut their oil usage to zero except Japan, Japan would ramp up their consumption to equal the present worldwide consumption level? What would they do, fill all the streets of their cities with oil and set it on fire?
Does it make sense that the only reason that the other countries of the world don’t use more oil is that the U.S. has first dibs on it or something? The logic of this escapes me.
Thanks Rufus, that is really what I was getting at. It is also worth noting that most other nation-states have signed the Kyoto protocol (as weak as it is it is still better than nothing), which would limit increased consumption anyway.
Actually, Bush is not to blame. We all are.
One of the major reasons this hurricane caused the damage that it did is that Louisiana and that whole area of the Gulf Coast has lost a hideous amount of the Mississippi delta. This has come about because of the damming, leveeing, etc. of the river to the point where it can’t silt the delta area faster than the Gulf erodes it.
Also see this PDF.
Somebody pointed out that that loss rate is roughly equivalent to losing something nearly the size of Manhattan Island every six weeks or so.
The solution, obviously, is to open the river back up just below N. O. and let it start doing its thing again. But I’m not going to hold my breath on that happening any time soon.
The German press slamming the U.S…meh. This is so expected it doesn’t bother me.
Some years ago Der Spiegel had a special issue on urban life around the world, and pretty much every city discussed, outside of Western Europe, was portrayed as a Third-World hellhole. This included also every city mentioned in the U.S., except for a slight nod to NYC, because, well, it’s New York City, after all.
Especially L.A. The article started off describing an inner city child who was able to say that something looked like “brains” because he had seen them oozing out of a gunshot victim. Next item to cover was, of course, the smog, with an extremely disingenuous photo provided: It showed a man wearing a surgical mask over his mouth and nose–but when you looked more closely it was obvious that he was a construction worker just coming off work and he was working with some sort of dusty or particulate material!!.
German journalists, oh well.