Skip to main content

New Orleans - should they go back

One of the biggest questions to face the "Big Easy" is whether they should try to rebuild the city where it was.

New Orleans is below water level and protected by the levees (dams). With clear evidence that weather is more volatile there has to be a judgement as to when next it will flood.

If they are going to abandon the city for months the big question is whether it would be more efficient to build a "New New orleans" elsewhere (above sea level).

There always is a question as to how much man should fight nature. On the flood plains of the UK it is clear we should not be trying to beat the waters. Instead we should simply not build on the flood plains. On the East of the country the cliffs are being eternally worn away. We have to a great extent to live with that because if we protect one area of cliff another one wears away.

Worsening weather and greater scarcity of hydrocarbons are two issues nothing can be done about in the short term. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels immediately the climate would continue to change.

The challenge for the US is to decide whether to build a new big easy or not.#

Comments

Peter Pigeon said…
I think the French quarter is above sea level, isn´t it? hard to see that being abandoned.

I wonder if insurance costs will start to have a big impact on rebuilding decisions in Louisiana and on location decisions elsewhere.
john said…
That's right. It is called such because it was built by the French because unusually it was not swampland.

I think you are right about the insurance up to a point.

I don't know that much about the local geography, however, and what may be done in the surrounding areas.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…