Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA_Monet
There are combination of issues that cause the first dustbowl. We forget that large sum of animals and insects are killed allowing certain other opportunistic "hearty" animals and insects thrive. It is my understanding too that locusts thrived in the dustbowl era. There were both cotton weevils and molds on the corn where the inappropriate use of pesticides and fertilizers.
That is why you have numerous scientists making sure that fossil fuel use is not the reason why there is global warming because if it is, it explains the ecological and natural disasters we are seeing these effects globally.
|
No really -- a huge part of it was that we hadn't really developed a resevoir system. We counted on the constant flow of the water as something we could rely on. That, of course is stupid. Still today, most of Oklahoma/Kansas is reliant on rainwater and reservoirs for potable water. We don't really have much in the way of rivers (yeah, we have a few, but they're mostly very small). The situation really isn't comparable to New Orleans because in all likelihood, there won't be another dust bowl.
I'd say there's about a 100% chance, however, that NOLA will be underwater again within the next century.
We can begrudge Boston for their Big Dig, but we should know that the money there isn't being flushed down a toilet. Boston isn't likely to be destroyed within the next century (at least not by a natural act). We can say with a decent amount of certainty that New Orleans will.
The parts of NOLA which were underwater ought to stay there. As for the poorer parts of town? I really could care less. They were built in places people weren't meant to live. The United States is full of habitable land which is above sea level. Move them there.