Posted on 10/04/2005 4:35:59 PM PDT by Lorianne
PENSACOLA, Fla. - As the Gulf Coast reels from two catastrophic storms in a month, and the Carolinas and Florida deal with damage and debris from hurricanes this year and last, even some supporters of coastal development are starting to ask a previously unthinkable question: is it time to consider retreat from the coast?
Yes, said Howard Marlowe, president of Marlowe & Company, a lobbying firm that represents counties and local governments, often in seeking support for coastal infrastructure, like roads, sewers and beach replenishment. "I think we need to be asking that and discussing that, and the federal government needs to provide leadership," Mr. Marlowe said.
He added, "I have never been an advocate for the federal government telling people that they have to move out, but it's important to have a discussion at all levels of government about what can be done to make sure more people do not put themselves in harm's way. It will not be an easy dialogue."
The idea that much of the coast is dangerous and getting more so is not new. Coastal scientists have been saying for years that global warming will threaten coastal areas with higher seas and more powerful storms, and that a hurricane lull that began in the mid-1960's will eventually give way to the far more dangerous pattern of storms that prevailed in the 1930's, 40's and 50's. Since then, though, development has transformed the nation's shoreline, especially on the east and gulf coasts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That's as far as I got. I know everything I need to know about the author of that Quote.
We're just going to abandon, say, 5 miles to the coast all across the Nation? Fat freakin' chance!
These pie-in-the-sky "scientists" need to get a grip on reality. Build smarter, with an eye to mitigating the potential damage; but for God's sake, quit staying stuck on stupid!
The problem is not global warming. The problem is crustal subsidence. Holland is an example of learning to live with it.
You take the risk. You assume all costs.
One problem with newspapers is that the headlines aren't written by the authors of articles; in this case the headline doesn't really match the content of the article.
Nowhere is it advocated that the entire coast of the US be evacuated or that the government forcibly evict people from the coast.
What IS advocated is the perfectly sensible policy of no longer subsidizing development or building infrastructure on SOME sections of the coast.
Retreat from the coast? We would have to move just about all of Florida to Georgia.
I think a more apt label is "heads up their a$$" scientists. Just one more shot in the NY Times quest to turn us all into simpering, spinless cowards.
I do think, however, that if people want to like in high risk areas, the rest of us shouldn't subsidize it.
I totally agree.
Oh yes. Please, the government needs to provide homes, Jobs, new cars and maybe new identities for those living on the coast! We must protect them from themselves!
i'm just curious: do conservatives think that the American people should subsidize development in coastal areas? because that's what's happening, thru government-subsidized flood insurance.
we are all paying so that people can build houses that will soon be underwater.
i agree!
That's a good one!
Exactly. Another ploy to condemn America for the fallacy of global warming. Without even waiting for the proof of their premise they start on the reactions.
Might there be a case for no longer providing federal flood insurance for these areas? Sure.
Let the open market set the price for insurance.
The market will establish the building standards, the areas you can build, the strength of the structures, the evacuation plans, etc. If you want to ignore that and build anyway and forgo insurance its your risk.
But to close off the entire coast for a storm that comes once every 50 years is silly.
i just read some articles on hurricanes in NYC and Long Island. Basically, when the next major hurricanes hit, southern manhattan and the south shore of LI will be under water.
maybe the government should start building some levees!!
Not if they relocated inland. OTOH, if God decided to flush...
Let people live where they want to. If someone can afford to live on the beach, nice to be them, but no automatic Federal bail out when the next Katrina hits. Don't make the rest of us subsidize their getting to live in one the country's vacation spots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.