In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's devastation, finding a scapegoat is a tempting (and perhaps necessary) prospect. Unfortunately, no one person, or even one organization, can be blamed for the thousands of deaths and estimated 200 billion dollars of property damage. Yes, it is true that the levees should have held and that there should have been a better emergency plan. But the catalyst for so much destruction in the first place wasn't the Corps of Engineers or the Department of Homeland Security, but rather a complete disregard for the natural environment of the Gulf Coast.
There were at least three real environmental factors that led to Katrina's potency. The first can be traced all the way back to the founding of New Orleans in 1718. In order for the French to maintain the earliest settlement, they had to manage the frequent flooding of the area, a task which was accomplished by a dirt levee. What the colonists failed to appreciate, however, was that the periodic flooding of the area was part of what made the site so appealing in the first place. When a river floods, it deposits sediment as the water recedes. This sediment is loosely packed and compresses over time. As a result, the ground physically sinks. Flooding actually keeps it at a consistent height above sea level by regularly replenishing the sediment supply.
Fast forward 300 years and much of the modern day city has actually sunk to about eight feet below sea-level. New Orleans, which lies between the ocean, the Mississippi River and a very large lake, is supposed to be underwater. The water did not recede after Katrina because, for the first time in decades, it was where it belonged.
This problem may have been partially mitigated if the surrounding ecosystem were still intact. Unfortunately, urban sprawl and over-development have effectively crippled Louisiana's natural flood control: wetlands. Wetlands naturally retain and purify excess runoff from rainstorms and rivers, gradually releasing it over time. In one of this country's largest infrastructural oversights, it has completely failed
to protect these crucial systems. More than 50 percent of America's original wetlands have been destroyed. In Louisiana alone, over 2000 square miles, have been developed. That is an area the size of Rhode Island.
Of course, no environmental diatribe would be complete without a nod to global warming and there is a high likelihood that Katrina is related to it. In recent years, a number of independent meteorological studies have verified that, over the last 30 years. Atlantic tropical storms have been increasing in severity. Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes to make landfall and Rita, which was at one point classified at level 5, has earned distinction as the third-most-powerful Atlantic hurricane on record. The link to climate change lies in ocean surface temperatures, since the warmth of the water is directly correlated to the severity of the storm. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations commission funded in part by the United States federal government, issued a report which warned of exactly the sort of erratic increase in severe weather that we are now seeing.
People refer to the destruction of New Orleans as a natural disaster, but that's only partly true. It is more accurate and realistic to call it a natural consequence of long-standing and nearsighted human disregard for the environment.
Take a moment to consider Katrina's economic impact: 200 billion in property damage, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, the world's fourth largest port shut down, 10 percent of America's oil refining capacity offline and dozens of offshore oil platforms out of commission. Ironically, neoconservatives like President Bush have been remiss in protecting wetlands and accepting greenhouse gas controls because of some bizarre perception that green policies are harmful to the economy. Hurricane Katrina has now shown us the cost of failing to act.
