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 Hemming 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

Its the long genes that stop working

People who read my blog will be aware that I have for some time argued that most (if not all) diseases of aging are caused by cells not being able to produce enough of the right proteins. What happens is that certain genes stop functioning because of a metabolic imbalance. I was, however, mystified as to why it was always particular genes that stopped working. Recently, however, there have been three papers produced: Aging is associated with a systemic length-associated transcriptome imbalance Age- or lifestyle-induced accumulation of genotoxicity is associated with a generalized shutdown of long gene transcription and Gene Size Matters: An Analysis of Gene Length in the Human Genome From these it is obvious to see that the genes that stop working are the longer ones. To me it is therefore obvious that if there is a shortage of nuclear Acetyl-CoA then it would mean that the probability of longer Genes being transcribed would be reduced to a greater extent than shorter ones.