Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,472 posts)
2. The problem is NOLA.
Sat Aug 10, 2013, 09:39 PM
Aug 2013

To prevent flooding, levees and channels were built. Channels are dredged to prevent silting.

The land's been subsiding for millennia. It's just that the Mississippi's always provided muck to raise the level of the marshes during floods. Until it was necessary to protect NOLA.

You can have one or the other.

More recently--as in "during much of the 20th century"--it's become recognized that the Mississippi is ready to change its channel entirely. One or two decent floods and the Mississippi would no longer flow through New Orleans. It's changed its channel regularly over the millennia. But because of NOLA, it can't be allowed to change.

The climatologist's wording is chosen very carefully. We're seeing not the results of climate change but the *implications* of climate change. The difference is that NOLA and the wetlands around it are set up to demonstrate how climate change will affect coastal regions--the entire process is playing out in an accelerated way. The primary problem still isn't rising sea levels or increased hurricane activity. The primary problem is still what the CoE and others have done to protect, at the sacrifice of the Mississippi Delta, NOLA.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»Louisiana is shrinking as...»Reply #2