If that over the next 50 yrs, the water level will increase, why rebuild New Orleans where it is?

Question

I was watching a show on the History channel on Global Warming, and conservitively the water level will increase at least 5 ft over the next 50 years.( it could be 80 feet worse case). Also on another channel the News was talking ablut the levi system in New Orleans( I learned that it is the only American city built below sea level and needs the levi system to keep our the Gulf). If this is true, why would we rebuild the city of New Orleans in the same place, knowing that we can not keep the water out no matter what of levi system we build? Why don't we face the facts and do what is responcible with our tax dollars?

Answer 1

I agree 100%. Even if the water did not rise (and we KNOW it will!) the next major storm could repeat the disaster.
In addition, I have always felt that building right along the coast should be outlawed as well. Historically, the coastline is always changing--- it is the nature of the ocean. I think it should all be made into public-access recreation land. Its ridiculous to restrict access to the ocean for fancy vacation houses--- then FEMA (read: our tax dollars) has to pay out mega-bucks to replace them when they are storm-damaged because insurers will not cover them.
Insanity!
P.S. to comment on the previous post: native Americans/Hawaiians/ etc. didn't live on the beach either..but went there to fish, swim.... then returned inland to their villages. We have become so out of tune with nature and so arrogant to think that we can control and conquer over everything!

Answer 2

You assume that global warming is a fact and the underlying premise that humans can cause it. Let's use that assumption. New Orleans is still one of the largest ports in our country because it is at the mouth of the Mississippi. That's important. New Orleans is also home to jazz music and some of the best food in the country. New Orleans also has a culture and flavor that does not exist anywhere else in this country (sorry Dallas!).

Many cities live directly in disaster areas or subject to the forces of nature. San Francisco is one of them and it felt the effects of nature in the 1906 earthquake. The city still lies near the convergence of major fault lines, but what would we have if the city never rebuilt? All of California spends billions of dollars meeting building requirements that make structures earthquake-safe. In fact, San Francisco is rebuilding a major part of the Bay Bridge right now, partially to meet such requirements. Maybe we should let it all fall off into the Pacific Ocean as well? (It never will, the tectonic plates are pushing California into the rest of the continental US)

It is not financially responsible to abandon important parts of our country. How we do it is another story altogether.

Answer 3

I care about the people in New Orleans but I think it is a mute point to build there and it is dangerous, the Native Americans never built there due to the risk of the area, they lived here for thousands of years before us and I think we need to take a hint.

Answer 4

so we have something to spend our tax dollars on.