Castles in the Sand

ROBERT S. YOUNG and ORRIN H. PILKEY wrote a nice op-ed piece on the redevelopment of the Mississippi Gulf Coast area.

Here's a quick quote:

At the very least, these proposals would cost billions of dollars to realize, aside from the environmental damage that would ensue. Yet as the corps acknowledged at the Geological Society meeting, its proposed “coastal improvements” would not provide protection from the kind of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes that have destroyed coastal Mississippi twice in the past 37 years. So what, exactly, is the point?

Great question. This might seem a bit insensitive, but I was thinking that it was folly to be trying to rebuild the area after it was destroyed by Katrina. I understand some of this was home to many people. I know they wouldn't want to move elsewhere, but it seems reckless and unconscionable to give anyone the idea that it would be safe to live there. Forget the economic fallacy of the situation, let's look at the people. If I told you to go live on a volcano on the big island of Hawaii, but didn't mention that if it erupts(which it will, it's a volcano after all) your home and everything in it, possibly you, could be destroyed. I should be ashamed of myself. This is not much different. The gulf coast area, specifically around the Mississippi delta is a very unstable region already without any cataclysmic natural disasters thrown in. Living in an area below sea level within eye sight of the sea is a good way to get under water. What do you guys think?

Also seen on: http://concernedcitizensoftoday.blogspot.com/2006/12/castles-in-sand.html