tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792113468159492623.post8982967166293650878..comments2022-09-07T04:11:54.313-07:00Comments on Emily Eisenhauer: 5 things Miami can learn about sea level rise from the DutchUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792113468159492623.post-65088786572239883622013-10-21T17:51:27.055-07:002013-10-21T17:51:27.055-07:00Thanks for the comment Malagodi, you make a lot of...Thanks for the comment Malagodi, you make a lot of good points. I certainly agree that acknowledging the mistakes of the past and looking to natural systems as we seek to adapt is critical, and I tried to make that point in the post. I also agree that relocation assistance should be included in adaptation planning, but in order for that to happen fairly, there needs to be processes in place for public engagement and decision making – that’s something else that I think the Dutch experience points to. <br /><br />The only other thing I’d add is that Miami is certainly not the only place where the capacity of the natural environment is overextended – for example arid regions like the plains states and much of Australia that were turned to intensive farming by European settlers are dealing with soil degradation. Lightening our footprint in sensitive areas will probably take a combination of social, technological and lifestyle changes. <br /><br />You might be interested in the “Idle no more” movement which has been fighting for indigenous land rights and resisting fracking in Canada. <br /><br />Thanks again for commenting.<br />Emily Eisenhauerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11686739051428810743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792113468159492623.post-68166992983481706122013-10-20T14:34:32.669-07:002013-10-20T14:34:32.669-07:00Yes, there may be 5 things we may learn from the D...Yes, there may be 5 things we may learn from the Dutch about engineering adaptation to sea level rise. Unfortunately, they are probably all wrong.<br />By placing undue focus on adaptation schemes – schemes which are, by the way, perfectly suited to the needs of contractors, engineers and architects – we miss the one big lesson that we could learn from those who were here before us; the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. That lesson would be that South Florida is not the place to build a large metropolis. Miami is, and has always been, only suitable for small-scale habitation; a minor fishing village.<br />For thousands of years, when large civilizations were being built in Central America and the Caribbean, Miami remained an outpost. Why? Not because those people didn’t know it was here. They knew it was here and they knew it was not fit for human habitation. It remains so today. Only with the introduction of European machines and hubris did anyone even consider it. It is worth noting that the development of Miami, stimulated by a railroad tycoon (economically) seduced by a temptress with beautiful oranges, took place roughly at the same time and with precisely the same equipment and precisely the same arrogance as the building of the Panama Canal. It involved the same process of industrial imperialism. One big difference is that, while the Canal, once completed, is relatively easy to maintain, the process of maintaining a huge metropolis against the inevitable incursion of the Atlantic Ocean is impossible. To be blunt: Miami was a mistake.<br />But what is to be done, now that the mistake has been made? First and foremost, the mistake must be recognized. This is important, because without putting down the foolish and baseless arrogance that has characterized Miami’s entire modern history, it will be impossible to make any of the moral choices that need to be made.<br />Those choices revolve around solving the inherent conflict between those who will profit from climate change adaptation; the contractors, engineers, architects and planners [these are the very industries that have profited greatly from the current folly] versus the less enabled homeowners and renters who populate what will become ~rather soon~ the sacrifice zones. By focusing entirely on engineering schemes to protect what can be protected and refusing to discuss assisting those in areas that can’t be protected, we completely avoid the obvious moral imperative.<br />Suddenly – or not so suddenly if you were paying attention – the insurance issue is upon us. 2014 will be the year marking the collapse of real estate value in South and Western Dade as the federal flood insurance subsidies are withdrawn, as they should be. Homeowners will increasingly find their property resale value (equity) tank as buyers are faced with $3000 per year flood insurance premiums that will go nowhere but up. Those homeowners, who innocently bought homes in areas that never should have been rebuilt after Hurricane Andrew will be the ones sacrificed on the altar of a ‘free market’.<br />Relocation assistance for those in untenable areas is not unprecedented. It was done in the Mississippi flood plain region in the mid-1990s. It is the fiscal and moral thing to do. But until we start talking about it; until it is included in the South Florida Climate Action Plan along with all the engineering schemes, no environmental justice can occur.<br />Malagodihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04265971350173178845noreply@blogger.com