I don’t mean this as a partisan jab but, I would have really liked to have seen Bush mention something about energy conservation today. If this country is going to pull together in the way that it appears we are going to need to, it has to start from the top.
Right- as Sunspace said, there are two months left, and we’re actually not quite at the peak of the season. The official end is November 30. There have been four hurricanes so far (Dennis, Emily, Irene and Katrina). I saw a prediction on Wikipedia from the NOAA that said 18 to 21 tropical storms, nine to 11 hurricanes, and five to seven major hurricanes are expected this year. (I’m sure those figures are inclusive and that the previous storms and hurricanes also counted.) Incidentally, if we actually have 21 tropical storms, that will tie a record, and take us all the way to W, the end of the hurricane alphabet. That’d be for Wilma. Tropical Storm Lee is already going, but isn’t expected to make landfall.
Yeah, me too. I’ve heard that a lot of people did not have flood coverage, either. Especially the poorest people. A lot of those houses were very old with families living in them for a long time. They won’t have the resources to rebuild.
I’m thinking that places like the French Quarter may simply be permanently lost, or at least changed beyond all recognition.
Biloxi Mississippi is a disaster. A large percentage of the people who lived there worked in the casino industry, and those casinos are gone, probably forever. I doubt that floating casinos will be allowed in that region again.
Another issue that will effect reconstruction is whether companies are going to be willing to underwrite commercial insurance in that area any more. What happens if they don’t?
They destroyed a lot more than that. In addition to the WTC towers, five other large office towers were destroyed or so heavily damaged they had to be destroyed, and 26 other buildings sustained heavy damage.
We tend to think of those smaller towers as ‘some other buildings’, but they were large buildings in their own right. For instance, building 7, which was destroyed, was a 46 story tower! That’s about twice as large as the tallest high rise in Edmonton, and would rank as one of the tallest high rises in New Orleans. There was also a large shopping mall under that tower, and a 22 story Marriott was also destroyed, along with three other smaller buildings.
But yeah, this disaster is going to be larger than the WTC attack, at least in terms of primary effects. Secondary effects, I don’t know. the WTC attack led to changes that hurt commerce throughout the U.S. and the world. Airlines were hit hard, as was shipping. 28 billion was spent that year on homeland security, and that’s a new and ongoing annual cost that will only go up.
But I don’t think we really have a grasp on the magnitude of this yet. As a small data point, gas in Edmonton today went up 20%. We don’t know yet how much oil production has been reduced and for how long, how long it will take to get refinery capacity back up, etc.
But the worst is the human toll, and I have a suspicion it’s going to be dreafully high. In the thousands. If you can see bodies floating in the streets all over the place, I can’t imagine how many bodies are trapped in cars, houses, and under debris. It’s very sad.
Well, heck, that’s not hard. Block the hole on the far side. Don’t even need to do it perfectly, just good enough. Let the pressure make it stay, then fill it in from the rear.
Again, not too hard. Use gas. Big-mother engines. Heck, even nuclear Naval engines to power those pumps. You’re going to need a lot of them, but it’s not impossible to think of a way to do it.
Still going to suck, but I don’t see anything that can’t be solved, folks. Have faith in good old American determination.
I was using “a couple” figuratively, not as literally two. I am from around here. 
It was a ton of office space, and lower Manhattan is still recovering from that loss. Business don’t seem to want to touch the space in the Freedom Tower. I think the basic point remains, though. New York City was not destroyed; hundreds of thousands (or millions?) were not left homeless. The effect on New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulfport and so on might be closer to the results of an atomic bomb than the September 11th attacks. When you account for the water damage, I don’t know what will be left in New Orleans. If 80% of the city is flooded, will they lose 80% of the buildings?
I’m sure stone and concrete structures will be restorable, even if wooden sub-structures within such buildings are not. Much of the inundated area is, however, residential, including slums, and most of those buildings are old, and wooden. 20’ of water can’t be good for a wooden structure, especially in that climate.
I live in Manhattan, and I worked downtown in September 2001, just a few blocks from the World Trade Center. The attacks occurred on a Tuesday, and I was back in my office on the following Monday, though the building was powered by emergency generators trucked in by FEMA.
Except for the buildings destroyed or damaged, most everyone was back at work downtown within weeks. The companies that had their offices destroyed were quickly able to find alternate work locations. There were only a very limited number of people living in the directly affected area, and of those, extremely few (if any) were killed or injured. In short, other than the killed or injured and those whose homes or offices were destroyed or damaged, the attacks had few direct physical consequenses (though the emotional consequenses were, of course, substantial).
In New Orleans, by way of contrast, the whole city will be shut down for months*. Think about that. Putting aside the rest of the Gulf Coast, the offshore oil rigs, the highways, the shipping and all of the other consequences, a city of a half million people will be closed for months. Tens of thousands of people will be housed indefinitely at a baseball stadium hours away, and that’s only one of the shelters that have been or will be set up.
We haven’t even begun to assess the physical consequences. We don’t know (and won’t know for weeks) what the conditions are in the flooded areas. We can’t even begin to guess at the death toll, though I would be very pleasantly surprised if the total were less than the three thousand or so that perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks. And the number of injured and ill will undoubtedly be much higher than the relatively few injured in the attacks.
All in all, it is a major catastrophe.
I’m guessing that on the basis of economic loss and general long-term disruption, but not in direct loss of life, this will probably end up considered the greatest natural disaster in US history. Johnstown, PA in 1889 and Galveston in 1900 were both more thoroughly destroyed, and loss of life in both (so far) was equal or greater, but both these events occurred in a more concentrated area and struck much smaller cities with less well-developed infrastructure.
Anyway, always bold at making probably erroneous predictions, I’ll leap in with a few:
Way early to tell for sure, but I suspect that whenever full recovery has been deemed to have been achieved, we could find the population and economic output of the area considerably lower (perhaps as much as 20-30%) than it was pre-storm.
In the long term, not as much as one may think. It’s unlikely that the companies with the largest industrial assets in the region (port facilities and hydrocarbon refining and shipping) will simply walk away from decades of huge investments. At worst some may move their operations further inland or further up rivers if possible, but still within the region, because it remains convenient for those industries to operate there.
Also a beach is a beach, and people like to go to the beach. The more tourist-oriented areas of Mississippi and Alabama that have been devastated will likely be more or less fully recovered in two or three years.
There seems little doubt there’s going to be a short, sharp oil price shock that will significantly affect the entire country. I expect the majority (maybe up to 80%) of pre-storm oil and gas production from the Gulf will be back on line within 3-4 weeks; it appears that about 10% of the country’s total refining capacity has been lost and will take somewhat longer to recover. How high will refined products prices go? Wouldn’t care to guess. How long? Dunno, maybe a year?
One might say, like when the US steel industry went through its slow collapse in the '70s and '80s, there will never be a full recovery. Practically speaking, looks like at least two years of rebuilding, and there could easily be storm refugees still camping at gov’t expense at that time.
On the contrary, I think the Quarter will be less affected than most of the city. It’s one of the higher-up areas–five feet above sea level, IIRC–so it will be among the first to dry out. Most of its really historic structures have to have been resistant to quite a bit of flooding to make it this long. As for the more recent construction, anyone who can afford property in the Quarter itself probably also has insurance for this situation. It may be a year or more before it’s much of a tourist destination again, but it will survive.
Other areas of the city, on the other hand, will just not be there anymore. I also predict that a large chunk of the displaced population simply won’t go back. Who the hell would want to go through this again? The resulting New New Orleans will be a heck of a lot smaller, which may be a good thing.
Yep, in the metropolitan area (see OP). And at that it doesn’t make the list of the 25 most populous metro areas in the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_areas
If it’s going to take 3 months before New Orleans is even nearly ready to go home to. improvised refugee camps are going to sprout up here and there – and due to poor sanitation, they’ll be breeding grounds for disease. Should FEMA build a central refugee camp, perhaps on some open (and unflooded) farmland near the city? I’m thinking a military-style camp – rows and rows of tents or quonset huts, latrines, showers, mess tents, medical tents, etc., but without a fence or trenches; a tent or hut for each family. What would that cost? How quickly could it be built?
Not to mention that the city already had a severe termite problem. Many of the old, wooden buildings were slowly collapsing anyway, the remainder being protected on dry ground. Now, *every * wooden building is wet and delicious.
I have to agree that the port facilities will return, and support some local economy. The Quarter will be there too, but as a fake Disneylandish version for the tourist trade (and maybe to some extent it already was). The city that gave it its vitality will be as scattered as its people.
On that note, the Saints have already made plans to move their operations to San Antonio, where their owner has a home and business interests. It can’t be a coincidence that it’s the largest US market without an NFL team (except for LA), and has a ready-made stadium. You can tell where this is headed, right? The team already depended on state subsidies to stay in the Superdome, and that now will be unusable for an extended period. Other claims on funding will have priority for a long time, and the city will be even less capable by far of supporting an NFL team anyway. The Saints are marching out, and look for other businesses that don’t have to be there to move too.
Will people tolerate being put into camps like that? I honestly don’t know. I think it’s more likely that there will be vouchers and money to be used for travel and rent. If 1.5 million people move out into the general population, some will stay with relatives. The rest will rent apartments and stay in hotels. What would that do to hotel and apartment rates?
If space in the camps were offered, a lot of people who have nowhere else to go (how much vacant hotel or apartment space can there be in the region now?) would gladly go there.
But would you tolerant the government offering no help to those people other than to put them in a barracks-style housing?
It seems more likely to me that people will simply be paid emergency money to travel throughout the country to find lodging. I honestly don’t have a clue how many people we’re talking about, though, and that certainly impacts the choices.
Also, I think you’re going to see a massive charitable effort, which could even include people taking refugees into their homes or otherwise putting them up in their communities. The U.S. people raised over a billion dollars for Tsunami relief. They’ll raise ten times that amount if they have to to help their fellow Americans, I’ll bet. That would be $20,000 for every one of 500,000 refugees.
er, ‘tolerate’.
Yep. If we’re talking about, say, 500k displaced persons… are there even that many available rentable properties or hotel rooms in that part of the south? At some point refugee camps become the only option because there’s nothing else to be done.
Why do they have to stay in that part of the south? If we’re talking temporary lodging, why couldn’t they take a bus to the midwest if that’s where they had to go? They have no jobs anyway, and no prospect of getting one until they go home. So I don’t know why they’d have to stay that close to the area.
If you’re questioning whether people would tolerate only an offer of a berth in a tent city, I think you also have to question whether people would tolerate an offer that requires them to move hundreds of miles away from familiar territory. Don’t underestimate the emotional attachment to even an abstract conception of “home.”
Now, if the offer were for one or the other, I can see that being more generally acceptable, even though neither alternative is particularly great.