(May 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm)orogenicman Wrote: That is largely because organizations such as the Corp of Engineers, who are responsible for flood control in the U.S., are prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The levees in New orleans were, in fact, slated for upgrades, and they were well aware of the limited protection they provided. Unfortunately, neither the Corps nor the Bush administration were in sync with nature's timetable.
Having said that, to be honest, I don't think the expense of trying to protect New Orleans from the inevidible is worth the expense and effort. It is my opinion that the most vulernable portions of the city should be moved to higher ground. It is more cost effective, and would have a longer lasting result. Continuing to build on such disaster-prone land is irrational.
Every organization in charge diseaster prevention in the world is prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The US, having a very large and rich economy, is actually far better off despite being under the same constraint.
My point is the same constraint will exist regardless of ACC, but because of ACC, the consequences of these constraints would be predictably worse. The difference can be called casaulties of ACC.
