SearchUser loginNavigationCreate new accountTeam Agonist
Universal Pantograph provides technical support for The Agonist. ThoughtfulTimelyMixed Bag of Candy: Who's onlineThere are currently 7 users and 586 guests online.
Syndicate |
Katrina and the Wildfires
Yesterday while working out I got to see some of CNN's coverage of the wildfires. CNN took a long tour of the stadium where a lot of people were staying, showing all the amenities available and the services. It was clean, well run, and no one was being locked up inside in indescribably filthy conditions by guards with guns. And I thought to myself, "If I were a black American, or if I were a (former) resident of New Orleans, I'd be beyond livid today." And, of course, many people in California have lost everything, and will find little aid in the future or even today, I'm sure. Nonetheless the contrast was just so striking between the way that New Orleans refugees were mistreated and the way that California wildfire refugees are being handled. Now you could say that Katrina was worse, it was harder to get supplies in, etc. -- but that's only partially true. It was hard to get supplies into New Orleans because federal authorities turned them back, turned back volunteers, and sat on warehouses full of goods they were unable or unwilling to deliver and which they wouldn't let others deliver. All that before you get to people being held at gunpoint in that cesspool of an arena. So that's a difference between Katrina and the Southern California wildfires. But in a larger sense, the similarities are much more striking. In both cases bad land management has contributed to the disaster. In the case of Southern California, a huge contributing factor was the way that proper clearing of underbrush hasn't been done, not, as some say, because of environmentalists, but because the Forest Service simply doesn't have the money. In the case of Katrina, the destruction of natural swamps that had formed a barrier which soaked up huge amounts of water and thus mitigated against flooding was a major contributor to the severity of the damage. In both cases extensive suburban and exurban tract land has expanded into wilderness areas that were very high risk, and which should probably have been left uninhabited. It's getting so that if you're on the coast in hurricane country you can't get disaster insurance. I suspect that soon enough you won't be able to get fire insurance in Southern California. Both cases also demonstrate very well the principle that if you won't pay for maintenane and prevention upfront, you'll pay on the back end by losing everything. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed 4 out of 5 bills intended to strengthen fire departments by adding new staff and equipment after the disastrous 2003 fire season. This is partially a partisan point (the Democrats passed them, he vetoed them) but in another sense it's just a continuation of Californian citizens' unwillingness to pay taxes for anything -- schools, fire departments, universities -- ever since Proposition 13. You get what you pay for. Californians have been consistently unwilling to pay for government services and now, harsh as it may sound, they're paying for them on the back end -- by losing their homes. It is especially rich in irony that most of the areas being destroyed are heavily Republican and very wealthy. I'm sure, however, that the connection between their aggressive refusal to pay "more" taxes and the loss of their multi-million dollar homes isn't sinking in. And at the federal level the Bush administration has run the Forest department, as usual, primarily as a political and pork machine. It put resources where they would do the most political good, not where they were most needed to fight fires. It insisted on continuing to hire contractors who had had performance issues in the past. There isn't an adequate fire fighting plan overall. And the department needs about 300 managers for fire fighting and has a hundred. (The department is training another hundred, leaving a gap of a hundred more. Consequently right now, as California is burning, its staffing level is at one-third full.) And the GAO has found many other problems. They sum up to incompetence, corruption and elevating political needs above operational ones. New Orleans, of course, was destroyed because the levees failed. And they failed because they weren't properly built or maintained. Furthermore, for decades, everyone had known that if the Big Easy got hit by the Big Storm, the levees probably couldn't take it. And the Army Corp of Engineers and the politicians who control its funding never, ever, fixed it. In other words, New Orleans' destruction was a matter of playing the odds. Any given year it was unlikely, but as the decades went by it was damn near inevitable that a big storm would hit shoddy levees not designed to take the hit anyway, and flood the city. Society is going to have start thinking about the cost of being cheap and the true cost of exurbs and suburbs. When you build in places that are dangerous -- like hurricane coasts or wildfire zones, bad things are bound to happen eventually. When you refuse to pay to maintain the environment properly, whether in terms of brush clearing in California or in terms of maintaining the swamps that surrounded New Orleans (or creating new ones or barrier islands), you increase the odds of catastrophe. Oh, it seems like an easy choice to cut a 100 million here or there by cutting fire services, or the forest department, but in the end you'll pay a hundred times more in property damage and lost lives. You can pay up front, or you can pay more on the back end. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (Photo by Andrew Gornbert / EPA) Ian Welsh October 25, 2007 - 11:00am
( categories: USA )
|
![]() Premium Advertising
Advertise Liberally |