Yesterday the Washington Post published an op-ed on climate change that, if it were a hurricane, would have to be rated Category 5. Entitled "We’re All New Orleanians Now," Mike Tidwell argues:
Barring a rapid change in our nation’s relationship to fossil fuels, every American within shouting distance of an ocean — including all of us in the nation’s capital — will become de facto New Orleanians. Imagine a giant floodgate spanning the Potomac River just north of Mount Vernon, there to hold back the tsunami-like surge tide of the next great storm. Imagine the Mall, Reagan National Airport and much of Alexandria well below sea level, at the mercy of "trust-us-they’ll-hold" levees maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. Imagine the rest of Washington vulnerable to the winds of major hurricanes that churn across a hot and swollen Chesapeake Bay, its surface free of the once vast and buffering wetland grasses and "speed bump" islands that slow down storms.
Because of global warming, this is our future. Oceans worldwide are projected to rise as much as three feet this century, and much higher if the Greenland ice sheet melts away. And intense storms are already becoming much more common. These two factors together will in essence export the plight of New Orleans, bringing the Big Easy "bowl" effect here to the Washington area, as well as to Charleston, S.C., Miami, New York and other coastal cities. Assuming we want to keep living in these cities, we’ll have to build dikes and learn to exist beneath the surface of surrounding tidal bays, rivers and open seas — just like New Orleans.
In Prometheus, Roger Pielke, Jr. claims that "arguments such as this make one think that the environmental community is hell-bent on its own self-destruction." Pielke says that we cannot change our fossil fuel consumption fast enough to reduce the risk, so–he argues–to claim that coastal cities in the East and along the Gulf Coast face Katrina-style disasters is irresponsible.
But what about the irresponsibility of doing nothing to prevent such disasters? That’s what concerns the enviro community. Isn’t that an argument for taking responsibility–specifically, for the responsibility of the Federal government to act to reduce the risk?
After all, the government has not acted to reduce the risk of hurricane damage, as Pielke has been proposing for years. Nor has it acted to reduce CO2 emissions.
It’s the total lack of action that brings forward this sort of apocalyptic reasoning; and, if truth be told, it’s the same lack of action that makes this sort apocalyptic argument all too credible.




