E-mail suggests government seeking to blame environmental groups for New Orleans

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Federal officials appear to be seeking proof to blame the flood of New Orleans on environmental groups, documents show.

The Clarion-Ledger has obtained a copy of an internal e-mail the U.S. Department of Justice sent out this week to various U.S. attorneys' offices: "Has your district defended any cases on behalf of the (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers against claims brought by environmental groups seeking to block or otherwise impede the Corps work on the levees protecting New Orleans? If so, please describe the case and the outcome of the litigation."

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups had nothing to do with the flooding that resulted from Hurricane Katrina that killed hundreds, he said. "It's unfortunate that the Bush administration is trying to shift the blame to environmental groups. It doesn't surprise me at all."

Federal officials say the e-mail was prompted by a congressional inquiry but wouldn't comment further.

Whoever is behind the e-mail may have spotted the Sept. 8 issue of National Review Online that chastised the Sierra Club and other environmental groups for suing to halt the corps' 1996 plan to raise and fortify 303 miles of Mississippi River levees in Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas.

The corps settled the litigation in 1997, agreeing to hold off on some work until an environmental impact could be completed. The National Review article concluded: "Whether this delay directly affected the levees that broke in New Orleans is difficult to ascertain."

The problem with that conclusion?

The levees that broke causing New Orleans to flood weren't Mississippi River levees. They were levees that protected the city from Lake Pontchartrain levees on the other side of the city.

When Katrina struck, the hurricane pushed tons of water from the Gulf of Mexico into Lake Pontchartrain, which borders the city to the north. Corps officials say the water from the lake cleared the levees by 3 feet. It was those floodwaters, they say, that caused the levees to degrade until they ruptured, causing 80 percent of New Orleans to flood.

Bookbinder said the purpose of the litigation by the Sierra Club and others in 1996 was where the corps got the dirt for the project. "We had no objections to levees," he said. "We said, 'Just don't dig film materials out of the wetlands. Get the dirt from somewhere else.' "

If you listen to what some conservatives say about environmentalists, he said, "We're responsible for most of the world's ills."


http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050916/NEWS0110/509160369/1260

No amount of Rovian spin will salvage Dubya's legacy.
 
Well, even if it's logically totally off base, for various reasons "protecting the environment" is a laughable concept to most Americans, so it's tactically sound (it's not like this is a groundbreaking approach to blaming somebody completely unrelated and logically removed from culpability)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, even if it's logically totally off base, for various reasons "protecting the environment" is a laughable concept to most Americans, so it's tactically sound (it's not like this is a groundbreaking approach to blaming somebody completely unrelated and logically removed from culpability)[/QUOTE]

Oh come on myke, you can't seriously believe that 99.9% of Americans don't support "protecting the environment." There is just wide disagreement on balancing issues.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Oh come on myke, you can't seriously believe that 99.9% of Americans don't support "protecting the environment." There is just wide disagreement on balancing issues.[/QUOTE]

Sure I would (though I'd be loathe to attach a percentage to it yet).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sure I would (though I'd be loathe to attach a percentage to it yet).[/QUOTE]

I doubt you could find one person out of 10,000 where you live that would say they don't want to protect the environment. It's just that some people's idea of protecting the environment is removing man from said environment completely and permanently.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I doubt you could find one person out of 10,000 where you live that would say they don't want to protect the environment. It's just that some people's idea of protecting the environment is removing man from said environment completely and permanently.[/QUOTE]

I doubt you'd find many (though probably a little more than 1 in 10 thousand) who just want to destroy the environment. It's just that many flat out don't care. If it's inconvenient in any way, then they don't care.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I doubt you'd find many (though probably a little more than 1 in 10 thousand) who just want to destroy the environment. It's just that many flat out don't care. If it's inconvenient in any way, then they don't care.[/QUOTE]

What alonzo said. "Preservation for future generations" is not the modus operandi in the culture of consumption. Recycling is an inconvenience for many, since the packages need to be rinsed and separated, and in some areas (such as my own), the extra labor needed to sort recyclables means you pay more for recycling services ($3/month in my case). That's just too much for some people.

Do you recycle? If so, why do you? If not, why not?

On a completely unrelated note, I'm somewhat forced to take a hiatus from CAG while I figure out what the fuck happened to my computer. My LCD screen died on my Dell this morning, and so I have to deal with their CS; in the meantime, I broke out my iBook (2nd Gen blue and white), only to find the OS X partition is dead (and my OS X disks missing). So, I'm running a 333MHz G3 on OS 9.2 right now, and I'm none to happy about it. I'll be on sporadically, but not so much right now. Until then...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you recycle? If so, why do you? If not, why not?

On a completely unrelated note, I'm somewhat forced to take a hiatus from CAG while I figure out what the fuck happened to my computer. My LCD screen died on my Dell this morning, and so I have to deal with their CS; in the meantime, I broke out my iBook (2nd Gen blue and white), only to find the OS X partition is dead (and my OS X disks missing). So, I'm running a 333MHz G3 on OS 9.2 right now, and I'm none to happy about it. I'll be on sporadically, but not so much right now. Until then...[/QUOTE]

I do, and I do because it's easy and it's the right thing to do. I tend to try to reduce throughput through myself as much as possible. I reuse things more than recycle them, I guess, things like plastic bags and packing materials, etc. I think this is just common sense, and the people who don't do it are generally selfish and lazy.

Sorry about your computer.
 
bread's done
Back
Top