Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana's Governor Declares State Of Emergency Over Disappearing Coastline (npr.org)
Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards has declared a state of emergency over the state's rapidly eroding coastline. From a report on NPR: It's an effort to bring nationwide attention to the issue and speed up the federal permitting process for coastal restoration projects. "Decades of saltwater intrusion, subsidence and rising sea levels have made the Louisiana coast the nation's most rapidly deteriorating shoreline," WWNO's Travis Lux tells our Newscast unit. "It loses the equivalent of one football field of land every hour." More than half of the state's population lives on the coast, the declaration states. It adds that the pace of erosion is getting faster: "more than 1,800 square miles of land between 1932 and 2010, including 300 square miles of marshland between 2004 and 2008 alone."
Large parts of the state are below sea level. It's time to start considering how much money should be thrown into Louisiana at this point just to buy a little extra time, and if instead we should be considering moving people out of the state altogether.
And the Republicans insist climate change isn't real . . . well maybe when half the red leaning states are under water they'll open their eyes. Probably be way too late by that point though.
In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
>They were born here; to suggest that they just pack up and move is pretty short-sighted and somewhat insulting.
The White House no longer recognizes man's effect on climate, which means there's little hope of policy directed at mitigating man's effects on climate - and still probably none even if they acknowledge the climate is changing and are merely ignoring man's role.
Beyond that, the White House already had very little control over other nations that are or likely will significantly affect climate going forward.
So... we're not going to fix the problem any time soon. The ocean doesn't care where you were born, it doesn't decide where its rising levels will flood land.
To suggest people pack up and move isn't insulting, it's unfortunately common sense given the circumstances.
seem to indicate that Louisiana is losing 3300 acres a year to the Gulf. about 5 square miles.
Plaquemines Parish is about 780 square miles, so if all loss were in Plaquemines, it would be losing about 0.6% per year land mass. Of course the loss is spread amongst 9 or more parishes, probably 10x the area total, the loss then becoming more like 0.06% per year.
This, my friends, is a Democrat emergency.
Mind you, this is an emergency to any family who used to live on land claimed by the Gulf, but not many do, as they are wise to the ways of water, and build differently there than elsewhere. I've played nine-ball in the Bayou. It's different there, mostly in good ways. But the Governor is certainly working this for all it is worth.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I guess you missed the part of my post where I said that most of these folks were born in that area.
For all those folks in Syria, why should I have to pay for them to relocate? They chose to live there!
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
The problem with your explanation is that it's fact-based, and stands on good science. This is the post-truth era. Thus, the counter to your argument will be:
Bruce Perens.
The denial of man's role is part of denying the change at all, because they're happy with the status quo. For some it's economics - they profit under the current system and alterations to reduce or fight the effects of climate change will reduce those profits, for some it's pure denial that the world could ever change.
When the water's up around their ankles, they're scream bloody murder for levees, but that's about it. If it's somebody else up to their ankles they'll come up with some way to rationalize how it was always a risk and the climate hasn't actually changed, and how it's the fault of those who chose to live there.
This has nothing to do with climate. It has nothing to do with "rising sea levels". It has everything to do with 150 years of engineering the Mississippi river. That river flows an ungodly amount of water, and that water picks stuff up and drops it off. Every geographical feature in that area was (mostly) the result of a dynamic equilibrium between sediment deposits and erosion. We've changed the river, and now the land is adjusting to a new equilibrium.
See that "Preview" button?
As I understand it, the biggest problem is NOT climate change or any other such disaster; the problem is human interference. They have channeled and canalled and levee'd and dredged the Mississippi output. The water -full of silt - that used to wash over the delta and deposit replacement dirt on the marshes and islands during heavy flow days (?) now is channeled along the river between high banks and well out to sea. The current delta is disappearing, but a few hundred years from now there might be a huge new marshy delta extending from where the river now spills into the gulf well past the current delta. Just look at Google earth to see the effect.
You can't have it both ways, you can't stop the periodic floods that help replace the soild and also defend the soil you have against wave action.
For the same reason part of the country pays to bring water to cities in a desert, or pays to have people live in Tornado Alley.
I'm fascinated by this notion that some have that societies should be fundamentally sociopathic... unless of course it's your own backyard, and then suddenly no amount of public funds is too much.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No. No it won't. The people who work these jobs live on the coast and since the Gulf of Mexico has a rather long coast that stretches from, well "Mexico" all the way to the tip of Florida I'm sure somebody in this world is going to work these jobs and continue to live on the coast. For that matter if the coast moves inland how is that supposed to prevent people from living near the coast (You don't actually think all of these people live on the beach do you?). Yes, the existing coastline changes. It continues to change and will keep changing. Nothing is going to stop that from happening entirely but lots of people live near the coast in Louisiana and will never be affected by this to any great degree. Seafood doesn't even factor into this. "More" ocean is supposed to translate into less seafood? Seriously?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Beyond that, the White House already had very little control over other nations that are or likely will significantly affect climate going forward.
Well, they could have supported a number of international accords aimed at reducing emissions.
Why should the rest of the country pay to relocate people who chose to be near the ocean? That isn't a federal issue, that's for the state or local governments to figure out.
Maybe because the issue has been caused in no small part by 300-million Americans driving SUVs, trucks, and burning coal. This is where the funds from a carbon tax should go.