倍可親

回復: 2
列印 上一主題 下一主題

華盛頓郵報:新奧爾良低海平面10英尺 值得重建嗎?

[複製鏈接]

681

主題

4563

帖子

1590

積分

有過貢獻的斑竹

倍可親智囊會員(十八級)

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
1590
跳轉到指定樓層
樓主
Adelyn 發表於 2005-9-10 00:16 | 只看該作者 回帖獎勵 |倒序瀏覽 |閱讀模式
Time for a Tough Question: Why Rebuild?

By Klaus Jacob

Tuesday, September 6, 2005; Page A25, Washington Post


It is time to swim against the tide. The direction of public discourse in the wake of Katrina goes like this: First we save lives and provide some basic assistance to the victims. Then we clean up New Orleans. And then we rebuild the city. Most will rightly agree on the first two. But should we rebuild New Orleans, 10 feet below sea level, just so it can be wiped out again?

Some say we can raise and strengthen the levees to fully protect the city. Here is some unpleasant truth: The higher the defenses, the deeper the floods that will inevitably follow. The current political climate is not conducive to having scientific arguments heard before political decisions are made. But not doing so leads to the kind of chaos we are seeing now.

This is not a natural disaster. It is a social, political, human and -- to a lesser degree -- engineering disaster. To many experts, it is a disaster that was waiting to happen. In fact, Katrina is not even the worst-case scenario. Had the eye of the storm made landfall just west of the city (instead of to the east, as it did) the wind speeds and its associated coastal storm surge would have been higher in New Orleans (and lower in Gulfport, Miss.). The city would have flooded faster, and the loss of life would have been greater.

What scientific facts do we need before making fateful political, social and economic decisions about New Orleans's future? Here are just two:

First, all river deltas tend to subside as fresh sediment (supplied during floods) compacts and is transformed into rock. The Mississippi River delta is no exception. In the early to mid-20th century, the Army Corps of Engineers was charged with protecting New Orleans from recurring natural floods. At the same time, the Corps kept the river (and some related canals) along defined pathways. These well-intended defensive measures prevented the natural transport of fresh sediments into the geologically subsiding areas. The protected land and the growing city sank, some of it to the point that it is now 10 feet below sea level. Over time, some of the defenses were raised and strengthened to keep up with land subsidence and to protect against river floods and storm surges. But the defenses were never designed to safeguard the city against a direct hit by a Category 5 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson scale) or a Category 4 hurricane making landfall just west of the city.

Second, global sea levels have risen less than a foot in the past century, and will rise one to three feet by the end of this century. Yes, there is uncertainty. But there is no doubt in the scientific community that the rise in global sea levels will accelerate.

What does this mean for New Orleans's future? Government officials and academic experts have said for years that in about 100 years, New Orleans may no longer exist. Period.

It is time to face up to some geological realities and start a carefully planned deconstruction of New Orleans, assessing what can or needs to be preserved, or vertically raised and, if affordable, by how much. Some of New Orleans could be transformed into a "floating city" using platforms not unlike the oil platforms offshore, or, over the short term, into a city of boathouses, to allow floods to fill in the 'bowl' with fresh sediment.

If realized, this "American Venice" would still need protection from the worst of storms. Restoration of mangroves and wetlands between the coast and the city would need to be carefully planned and executed. Much engineering talent would have to go into anchoring the floating assets to prevent chaos during storms. As for oil production, refining and transshipment facilities, buffer zones would have to be established to protect them from the direct onslaught of coastal storm surges.

Many ancient coastal cities of great fame have disappeared or are now shells of their former grandeur. Parts of ancient Alexandria suffered from the subsidence of the Nile delta, and earthquakes and tsunamis toppled the city's famed lighthouse, one of the "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World."

It is time that quantitative, science-based risk assessment became a cornerstone of urban and coastal land-use planning to prevent such disasters from happening again. Politicians and others must not make hollow promises for a future, safe New Orleans. Ten feet below sea level and sinking is not safe. It is time to constructively deconstruct, not destructively reconstruct.

The writer, a geophysicist, is an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He teaches and does research on disaster risk management.[/FONT]

681

主題

4563

帖子

1590

積分

有過貢獻的斑竹

倍可親智囊會員(十八級)

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
1590
沙發
 樓主| Adelyn 發表於 2005-9-10 20:00 | 只看該作者
this is a very well written essay from which we can learn a lot. disagree with me? read on...


It is time to swim against the tide[/COLOR]
>> Now I will make an argument against the mojority's point of view (the mainstream)

public discourse in the wake of Katrina[/COLOR]
>> Discussion of the public after the rsult of Katrina has been seen

provide some basic assistance to the victims[/COLOR]
>> provide assistance to somebody

clean up[/COLOR]
>> remove, eradicate

rebuild[/COLOR]
>> to make extensive repairs to, reconstruct: rebuild a war-torn city

Most will rightly agree on[/COLOR]
>> Why not "Most people will correctly agree?"
>> What's the difference between rightly and correctly, and agree and agree on?

But should we rebuild New Orleans, 10 feet below sea level, just so it can be wiped out again?[/COLOR]
>> How would you say this? Is the following sentence closer to what you have in mind?
>> However, since New Orleans is 10 feet below sea level, if we first built the city up, it will be wipe out again by floods. Why should we do so?"
>> Is this longer sentence better or worse, and why?


Now let's do a small exercise.

Read the paragraph again and minimize the window by clicking on the little dash on the very upper right corner. Open your Notepad, try to write down what you have just read. Note, do not try to recall what words the author has used. Instead, focus on the images still remain in your mind and speak them out. You may continue this exercise for the second paragarph and so on.
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

681

主題

4563

帖子

1590

積分

有過貢獻的斑竹

倍可親智囊會員(十八級)

Rank: 3Rank: 3

積分
1590
3
 樓主| Adelyn 發表於 2005-9-11 11:03 | 只看該作者
這是一篇寫得很好的文章,值得細讀,體會作者的寫作構思和技巧。
回復 支持 反對

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄后才可以回帖 登錄 | 註冊

本版積分規則

關於本站 | 隱私權政策 | 免責條款 | 版權聲明 | 聯絡我們

Copyright © 2001-2013 海外華人中文門戶:倍可親 (http://big5.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系統基於 Discuz! X3.1 商業版 優化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2025-8-28 12:16

快速回復 返回頂部 返回列表