I've got to work on how I'm linking stuff.
I was just linking that last one to show the criticism yesterday. I think Peppy's article was the best one about FEMA.
I agree that buying the land most likely to flood and using in for parks is a great idea and when you are rebuilding after a devastating natural disaster is a great time to consider where it makes sense to rebuild. (This does kind of lead to ugly redevelopment on the coasts after hurricanes sometimes, but there's got to be some kind of reality check on what's logically insurable.)
But when you talk about stuff in the 100 year or 500 year flood plain, should the govt. buy that too? How much farm land would that involve that would make sense NOT to plant most years? I know nobody suggested that, but I just don't think we'll ever get to the level when we can completely anticipate and negate the relatively awesome power of natural forces.
I'm sure there could be levee improvements and top notch city planning, but considering the relatively low loss of human life, I'm not throwing in that this one was a governmental failure just yet, which was the tone that Byrd was developing and that I expect to see dominate some coverage.
Has anyone seen any coverage that ties in ethanol production further affecting crop supply? ETA: apparently I was looking at this backwards. I was assuming that maybe there'd be less stored corn grain or whatever because ethanol production was up, but apparently the issue is corn prices are just making ethanol production less profitable.
http://www.wsj.com/article/SB1213360..._us_whats_news
Threaded Mode
