The still-developing disaster of Hurricane Katrina has some obvious parallels with the Kobe earthquake ten years ago. Both were predictable (and widely predicted) events. The damage from Kobe took years to fix, and it’s already obvious that the same will be true of Katrina.
Equally significantly, weaknesses in the state response to Kobe had big psychological impacts in Japan. The earthquake came at a time when the Japanese economy was recovering from the bursting of a huge property bubble, but when triumphalist rhetoric about the strengths of the Japanese state, and the inevitable dominance of Japanese ways of doing business, was stronger even than during the 1980s. The failure of the initial government response to the disaster and the mismanagement and pork-barrelling that characterised the reconstruction effort went a long way towards reducing confidence.
So far the response to Katrina seems even more chaotic and ineffectual than the Japanese government’s response to Kobe. It seems as if, even over the weekend, when the odds of disaster were already better than even, there was no serious attempt to prepare for the implementation of contingency plans. In fact, judging by the statements coming out of FEMA, it appears that no contingency plan exists, beyond hoping for the best.
So far, there hasn’t been time to think much about the reconstruction and long-term relief effort that will be required. At a minimum, it will be economically necessary to get the ports and energy infrastructure working again. Then there’s the question of what kind of assistance can be provided to half a million or more people who’ve been displaced from their homes for months at least, and perhaps permanently. A coherent and well-run response would do a lot for confidence: a continuation of the current shambles will not.
It’s also worth thinking about the relationship between Katrina and the Kyoto agreement. Of course, it’s impossible to tell whether the severity of the hurricane was increased by global warming, and it remains unclear whether the frequency and severity of tropical storms has increased, though most models predict such an increase in the long run.
Moroever, the Kyoto protocol is only a modest first step towards a response to global warming. Even if the US had ratified Kyoto, there would not yet have been more than a minuscule effect on the rate of warming and effects like tropical storms.
There is one important similarity though. The policy of hoping for the best, even in the face of strong evidence that a disaster was likely, shown up in the failure to plan for an event like Katrina is exactly the same as the one we have seen in relation to Kyoto. As Mark Kleiman observes, “failing to plan is planning to fail�.
John Quiggin 
>So far, there hasn’t been time to think much about the reconstruction and long-term relief effort that will be required. At a minimum, it will be economically necessary to get the ports and energy infrastructure working again. Then there’s the question of what kind of assistance can be provided to half a million or more people who’ve been displaced from their homes for months at least, and perhaps permanently.
New Orleans’ position at the mouth of the Mississippi essentially guarantees that much of the port and energy infrastructure will be rebuilt.
The world-wide fame of Bourbon Street and the Mardi Gras make a strong argument for restoring New Orleans as a tourist destination.
But you have to ask whether it makes sense to encourage most of the residents whose homes have been destroyed to return to New Orleans.
New Orleans is located below sea level in an area where hurricanes occur regularly, while this disaster has been the worst in the city’s history it’s by no means first and is unlikely to be the last.
I’m not advocating coercion but I think that when the government provides funding to people whose homes were destroyed it should offer incentives for them to relocate rather than to rebuild in New Orleans.
I think the statistic is for every 1 degree rise in average global temperatures, freak weather events double. I also like that statistic that if the sydney hailstorm was 1 km away from where it was, the insurance payout would have been larger than the Newcastle earthquake and the Australian Insurance industry would have colapsed.
Benno – you write “I also like that statistic” – thats a bit perverse!
Can you pls locate the source of that statistic, particularly the reference to “the Australian Insurance industry would have colapsed” nonsense
thanks
Pr Q is, as usual in economic matters, right on the ball. The post-1994 Kobe-JAP letdown parallel can be extended to the post-1991 GFR-FDR letdown. Given that the US financial agent are even more in hock than FDR and JAP agents we would expect to see a similar constrain on growth.
The devastation of New Orleans is particularly bad for the US because, as Daniel Gross in Slate observes, the N O industrial infrastructure sits at the cusp of the Old Economy (of actual material goods production) and New Economy (of virtual networked service distribution).
So far financial markets do not appear to have absorbed this and factored it into asset values. But one suspects that the bears will be out soon.
Elizabeth called “nonsense” the claims that had the Sydney hailstorm been 1 km away from where it was, the Australian insurance industry would have collapsed.
Agreed. From memory, the main financial cost of the Sydney hailstorm was *cosmetic* (!) panel damage to expensive cars. Even if the epicentre of the storm had been over the late Rene Rivkin’s (et al) fabled car fleet/s, it is hard to see the Australian insurance industry reeling too much in the long term. For one thing, Sydney’s Eastern suburbs would themselves go financially kerr-plunk if the Australian insurance industry did likewise.
Benno – I very much doubt that there is such a direct linear relationship between temperature rise and storm frequency and such statements do not help the cause of us AGW proponents. TRS frequency and intensity MAY increase with AGW however this will remain to be seen. Also the GLOBAL frequency will have to be measured as in one area the frequency could decrease while another area increases or areas that do not have major storms suddenly experience them for the first time. This happened last year in the southern Atlantic.
A slice of the local history of dangerous and illegal development around Lake Pontchartrain is at http://www.saveourwetlands.org/edenislehistory.htm
Prof. Quiggin has said that he is not overly interested in scandals. This surprised me at the time I read it, since the history of scandals has formed a large part of the history of my time, all the way from the Pentagon Papers to HIH. And the above webpage indicates to me that the history of relevant scandals is a substantial part of the New Orleans flood disaster story.
Following the trail of scandal is likely to give us a better understanding of what happened and why than any vague speculation about the percentage of impact due to global warming or how New Orleans’ economy might be characterised is likely to do.
Any addict (as I’ve been) of James Lee Burke’s novels concerning Louisiana – more especially the rural bayou, though New Orleans also – will now find the prospect of re-reading those novels extremely painful.
I, for one, am not sure if I’ll ever be able to read him again, after what’s happened in the last few days. He’s obviously based his fiction on numerous real life scandals concerning such matters as Louisiana’s amazingly lenient industrial pollution laws (allegedly weaker than those of any other state – perhaps an expert in American pollution history can say if I’m right or wrong on this score). If you don’t know Burke’s books, and if you have a stronger stomach than I do, you might well take this chance to seek them out.
Hoping for the best is at the bottom of most defence planning in Australia.
I appreciate the difficulties that these Australians had in New Orleans, http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/australian-couple-rescued/2005/09/03/1125302775569.html but to chide the Australian Government is silly. What did they really expect/hope for DFAT to do? Organise for the ADF to invade Louisianna?
Following the devastation on the Gulf Coast, Paul Krugman, in the New York Times (2005.09.02) has chastised the Bush administration for a systemic failure — a lack of interest in the basic functions of Government — in addition to specific mendacity. Never was it clearer the mess we end up in if we elect believers in small Government to run our countries.
Since when was Bush a practiser of small Government?
Anyone who thinks Katrina will significantly damage American confidence doesn’t really understand America.
The victims of Katrina are mostly poor blacks, whom most of the rest of America could not care less about. Add in the raping, looting and general lawlessness and most Americans will simply be reinforced in their opinion that that segment of society is not worth worrying about.
Likewise, I suspect 9/11 would have had far less impact on American confidence if the planes had struck poor inner-city neighbourhoods instead of bringing down buildings full of rich white bankers.
test
Just a note from an anonymous commentator who formally posted here. The handle of this post is invented to circumvent the moderation that JQ is applying to all my posts.
He has gone to some length in pursuit of moderation: text matching on the name and IP source. And he appears to have blanket denial of some proxies.
The posts of mine that are being moderated away are no more inflamatory than a lot of what is posted here, but they are more critical of JQ himself, and they do express a position further to the right than most posts here.
I believe JQ can do whatever he likes with his blog. But I also believe that as someone in receipt of (considerable) government funding he has a responsibility to publicly announce his moderation policy, or else blog privately.
At present, his moderation policy appears to be to remove posts from people that argue too strongly against his leftist position. As far as I know, that is not stated anywhere on his site. It should be.
To Michael Finnegan:
Why would you wish to post messages on a site where your views are well to the right of the other posts? Even if your views were reasonable, wanting to debate a group of people who do not share any of your values strikes me as evidence of either gross stupidity or malicious intentions. Perhaps you could tell us which it is!
Peter, “Never was it clearer the mess we end up in if we elect believers in small Government to run our countries.”
Bush, like many state government in the US has expanded the role of government. He is not an advocate of small government, despite his rhetoric on the issue.
Professional politicians tend to be good at getting elected, but that is no guarantee of good governance. The latter is the issue here.
tseting tseting
To Peter [new handle required to keep ahead of JQ – this is x_anon]:
“…a position further to the right than most posts…” is not the same as a position “…well to the right of other posts…”. My views intersect with those expressed by regular commentators here.
I am neither grossly stupid nor malicious. I simply disagree with with JQ on many of his arguments that come from a left-wing perspective. And although his entries are almost invariably very well written and give the appearance of considered opinion, I find a lot of his arguments to be quite transparently political.
You may ask why I care? JQ receives considerable public funds to support him, has something of a public profile, and purports to offer considered opinion on this blog. Hence he is a good figure to engage in debate.
If he wishes to ban people from commenting because their views are in conflict with his, then I believe that he should be public about it. But I suspect he is not public about it because a public statement of his moderation policy would damage his credibility.
I’m sure Bush believes in small government.
He’s simply incapable of making any meaningful changes to the overall system and therefore, like virtually all such believers, ends up engaging in ham-fisted and ill-conceived cosmetic changes to the system of government which, if anything, end up costing more in the long run.
On the issue of Bush’s beliefs: we know, because he has told us so, that he invaded Iraq because God told him to. Had God told him to fund repairs and improvements to the New Orleans levee system he would undoubtedly have done so. So clearly the devastation of New Orleans is all part of God’s great plan.
>I believe JQ can do whatever he likes with his blog. But I also believe that as someone in receipt of (considerable) government funding he has a responsibility to publicly announce his moderation policy, or else blog privately.
How does one “blog privately”? Write the posts then delete them? Construct a private intranet?
In what way is his blogging related to or supported by his University post?
The last time I looked academics were expected to teach, conduct research, publish and contribute to public life. How does this blog differ from JQ’s articles in the AFR as far as that last expectation is concerned?
The fact that your taxes pay for a miniscule fraction of John’s wages no more entitles you to an opinion about his moderation policy than it entitles you to an opinion about his choice of wall-paper or lawn ornaments.
X-anon (or whoever) you haven’t been moderated because of your views [quite a few rightwingers comment here] but because of your offensive tone and repeated personal attacks on me and other commenters on this site.
I’m too busy to deal with your efforts right now, but I’ll request again that you stick to substantive discussion of the issues, otherwise you’ll be permanently banned.
Ender said
“TRS frequency and intensity MAY increase with AGW however this will remain to be seen. Also the GLOBAL frequency will have to be measured as in one area the frequency could decrease while another area increases or areas that do not have major storms suddenly experience them for the first time. This happened last year in the southern Atlantic.”
A voice on ABC, whose name and credentials did not penetrate my morning drowsiness, said that Katrina “had an increased intensity fuelled by increased sea temperature.” In turn the voice attributed increased sea temperature to global warming.
The ABC anchor, Fran Kelly I think, pressed the voice to detail the physics of the transmission of energy from the warmer sea to the weather event at least twice, but the replies were inferential and non specific.
The voice was also pressed on the evidence of how warmer sea temperatures in the Gulf were attributable to global warming. The voice seemed all “at sea” on this question, and seemed astonished that it was not self-evident.
With this sort of “information” circulating, how can we have an informed debate?
At this point I want to believe what the voice said, but the same voice makes it hard to believe.
Derrick’s post suggests that he IS HEARING VOICES.
Cyclones and Greenhouse warming is currently being debated(again) in an informed way at Climate Science. The upshot of the science is that the intensity of tropical cyclones on average will/is increasing with global warming.
Re:New Orleans – I don’t know of a natural disaster anywhere that has esulted in Australian tourists being shot and raped in the aftermath. I suspect that in the washup, that the most profound affect will be on the confidence of the US’s allies. Personal stories are often much more significant in shaping public opinion than overall consequences such as changes in GDP. Similarly the overall poverty of the people caught up in the cyclone might be blamed for the neglect, but, trust me, there’ll be rich and famous survivors/victims whose stories will galvanise and enrage when they are heard .
The real issue may be how the American political system deals with the issue. Is it neglect or a conspiracy that led the Bush administration to appoint a man who had been fired from his previous job as the head of International Arabian Horse Association. It’s probably this man who is preventing Australian consular officials from entering NO, and he is also probably the reason that the army has finally taken control.
I’m not quite sure how much blame to attach to Bush.
The US president is not a dictator, and he cannot tell state authorities what to do. Bush recommended evacuation two days before the local authorities did anything about it. Note: the US president has no power to order an evacuation.
The mayor of New Orleans is a Democrat, and an African-American
The Governor of Louisiana is a Democrat, too.
Despite it being a ‘manditory evactuation’, the Democrat city authorities and the Democrat state officials did nothing to help those without transport to leave the city.
There have been plenty of reports and studies that the levees would not be able to withstand a category 4 hurricane.
Strengthening levees is surely a Louisiana State or a New Orleans Municipal responsibility. Any evidence that they had a plan, and asked for Federal money and got a knock back?
Any evidence that they had a plan, and asked for Federal money and got a knock back? Plenty – google it
“The US president is not a dictator, and he cannot tell state authorities what to do. Bush recommended evacuation two days before the local authorities did anything about it.” You got a link for that furphy?
Even Australians loot: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/australians-loot-to-survive/2005/09/04/1125772395898.html
jquiggin: I don’t buy your reasons for moderating me. While I accept that some of my attacks have occasionally been personal, you moderated me only after I responded with a mildly personal attack towards someone who made a personal attack on me (called me a liar).
But the peron who attacked me was on your side of politics (Tim Lambert). As far as I can tell, personal attacks on the right from the left are ok with you, but not vice versa. There is plenty of evidence in your comment archives supporting this (you often make personal attacks yourself on political figures from the right).
Given such double standards and the gymnastics I have to go through to post, there seems little point in me posting here in future.
Ian Gould: You’re right – where my tax dollars go is irrelevant (I never claimed otherwise). What matters is that jquiggin is a publicly funded public figure and hence should be held to reasonable standards of objectivity in his public discourse.
The quality of the wingnuts around here is declining.
Despite Warnings, Washington Failed to Fund Levee Projects:
x-anon:
You’re one of Joe Cambria’s sockpuppets, aren’t you?
“Katrina’s threat was so acute that President Bush joined the chorus of officials who urged New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco to order a mandatory evacuation, issued Sunday morning after lower-lying areas outside the city were cleared Saturday.”
http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/12494991.htm
Speaking the Truth
After some pretty disheartening comments on Naomi’s thread about the Katrina disaster where sundry RWDBs accused lefties of being heartless, being “gleeful” about the events, and other rather disturbing and false allegations (probabl…
Just because someone is in receipt of public money to teach at a university does not mean that person is obliged to accept anyone into the lecture theatre, or tolerate any subsequent behaviour.
S/he can set up a public forum in the exercise of communications responsibilities, but they will still function by rules which are set up by the person organising it, with which the participants implicitly agree.
Is that formal and distant enough? It means play by the rules or don’t play at all.
The complications of this disaster and its impact is getting lost in the let’s score a point. If anything is to be learnt more than inspect detect and blame is required. Just a couple of other points from the article that SJ seems to have referred to . That is there is plenty of blame to go around if that is one’s choice when responding to a disaster.
‘But in May 2004, then Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he had visited the levees as a guest of Landrieu and believed them adequate..
Over the years, several projects either were short-changed or never got started. The Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project was authorized by Congress after a rainstorm killed six people in May 1995. It was to be finished in 10 years, but funding reductions prevented its completion before Katrina struck.�
I note from the article that the Army Corps of Engineers was viewed with suspicion
“In the case of New Orleans and flood control, another factor was at work: the reputation of the Corps of Engineers. Over the years, many in Washington had come to regard the Corps as an out-of-control agency that championed huge projects and sometimes exaggerated need and benefits.�
The engineers had become the outsiders it would seem from such as this. A behaviour in relation to disasters which can often be observed, though unfortunately with hindsight.
Just to add to the complications I heard a report I heard this morning that said it seemed that the levees that failed were unfortunately of those that had been recently worked on.
I don’t have the knowledge to consider the likely economic outcomes, but note this poll that would suggest at this stage US confidence is riding this out. ABC via Instapundit.
Sept. 4, 2005 — Americans are broadly critical of government preparedness in the Hurricane Katrina disaster — but far fewer take George W. Bush personally to task for the problems, and public anger about the response is less widespread than some critics would suggest.
In an event that clearly has gripped the nation — 91 percent of Americans are paying close attention — hopefulness far outweighs discontent about the slow-starting rescue. And as in so many politically charged issues in this country, partisanship holds great sway in views of the president’s performance.
The most critical views cross jurisdictions: Two-thirds in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the federal government should have been better prepared to deal with a storm this size, and three-quarters say state and local governments in the affected areas likewise were insufficiently prepared.
Too early to tell Ros.
An eerie parallel to the polioical situation is that it took a day or so for the levees to dissolve and a self-congratulatory near-miss to turn into a social, economic, human, and ecological disaster.
Will it also turn into a political armageddon for the already deeply stressed Bush Clique? The political bandwagons haven’t started rolling yet. It’s a matter of wait and see for who’s going to jump on board.
(x-anon posting as fickle minn to circumvent moderation)
David Tiley: I am not arguing against JQ’s right to set up whatever rules he chooses. I am pointing out that he has one set of rules for the left and another for the right, and he should be open about it.
Specifically, personal attacks on the right from the left seem to be fine, and go unmoderated. Personal attacks on the left from the right are dealt with more severely. There is plenty of evidence in the comment record for this. JQ himself is quite fond of using dengrating language towards Liberal members of the Federal Parliament.
Of course he will never be open about this policy because it would ruin the veneer of objectivity around this forum.
SJ: No
Keep fighting the Good Fight, x-anon. You’re a wonderful advertisement for the Cranky Right.
Did you, Troll-like, emerge from under a bridge? Or did some Katrina-like event cause the bridge to collapse on you?
Careful Katz, personal attacks will get you moderated.
Oh, sorry, silly me. I’m on the right. Carry on.
If Katz’ comment is a “personal attack” then you are indeed fickle, mate. Harden up.
X_anon (or Fickle minn, or who-ever you are),
Regardless of whether or not you are correct, you have made your point (again and again and again!). Please, let it go.
I, for one, am sick of reading about your thoughts on moderation.
To The-Person-Formerly-Known-as-x-anon, who is upset at what he/she claims is the use of public funds to support a blog from which some people are excluded:
Last time I checked, Telstra was still in receipt of public funds. Yet it excludes people all the time from its operations. The major exclusion policy is called “Marketing” — focusing attention of the business on possible customers thought to have the greatest revenue potential. Another exclusion policy is called “Billing” — disconnecting customers who are unable or unwilling to pay for Telstra’s services. A third exclusion policy is called “Engineering” — building out the network to where expected demand is greatest (whether on the basis of geography, time, or services) and giving fewer network resources to the rest.
To most people, this is common sense, since Telstra’s resources are not infinite and have to be allocated somehow. To x-anon, however, this would be blantant discrimination in the use of public funds. Strange part of the right-wing you inhabit, x-anon.
dirtbikeoption: What are Katz’s comments if they are not personal?
Jar Jar: I make a point. Someone responds with what I consider to be an invalid counter. So I respond back. It’s not called commentary for nothing. If you don’t like my comments don’t read them. There are plenty of commenters here that I routinely don’t bother to read.
To Peter: Not all exclusionary behaviour is equivalent. None of what you describe from Telstra would be considered misuse of public funds. However, if, for example, Telstra allowed only political advertising from one side of politics on FoxTel, that would be misuse of public funds.
I believe that if JQ was open about his double standards in moderation (personal attacks from right to left are verboten but not vice versa), it would diminish his and this forum’s credibility, in part because it would be viewed by many as such a misuse of public funds.
But you know something? I really don’t care that much – it is just a blog. As Jar Jar says, I’ve made my point. I have also learnt a lot about the left, at least as it is represented by this blog. So carry on with the personal attacks on those who disagree with your viewpoint (eg John Howard and the rest of the Liberal Ministers); it is a very powerful electoral tool [sarcasm alert].
1. X-anon, I hope you won’t be the last to perceive that, objectively speaking, and removing all hint of personal comments, that one of is an amusing and witty fellow, while another of us is a whingeing, carping, boring prat.
2. While I deplore the cheap populism of the Beazley’s suggestion that Australian armed forces members in the US might commandeer US military hardware and personnel to rescue Australians caught up in Hurricane Katrina, nevertheless Howard’s riposte that that Beazley’s course of action may result on violence rings very hollow indeed.
Howard has admitted his inability to take independent action in regard to saving Aussies caught up in a natural disaster in the territory of our closest alliance partner/coalition partner/great and powerful friend.
What chance does Howard really give Australian force-of-arms in pursuit of his idiotic policy of pre-emptive strikes in neighbouring countries whose governments are likely to take deep umbrage at an Australian breach of national sovereignty?
Could it be that Howard’s threadbare impersonation of Churchillianism was itself merely an exercise in cheap populism?
>it would diminish his and this forum’s credibility, in part because it would be viewed by many as such a misuse of public funds.
Just how do you think public funds are being misused?
I must take issue with Katz’ comparison of ex-anon with mythological beings that lurk under bridges.
It is clear from ex-anon’s contributions that he is actually a member of the same ethno-cultural grouping as the three characters in The Hobbit who were caught by Gandalf in the middle of an unproductive discussion about the best way to cook thirteen dwarves and one hobbit.
“Just how do you think public funds are being misused?”
Public funds are paying for JQ to run this Blog, which makes it a form of publicly funded media. I believe JQ has a discriminatory moderation policy that is biased against right-wing commenters [eg, Katz’s freedom to denigrate me would almost certainly not be tolerated if it was directed the other way]. Moderation is a form of censorship, and I think it is uncontentious that publicly funded media should be transparent with their censorship policy.
Probably the best (although imperfect) analogy is with the ABC: there is constant public debate about the perceived anti-right and pro-left bias of the ABC. There is strong pressure for it to be seen as impartial, and it would be seen as an outrage if implicit or explicit anti-right censorship was uncovered.
The analogy is imperfect because JQ is up-front that his blog is a view from the left, so we expect his entries to be slanted that way. But I believe most people would expect someone in his position to not be politically biased in his censorship of commenters.
Probably the best counter-argument is that this blog is not a form of media but is instead a kind of political club. In that case it would be more appropriate to restrict the membership to those who are more in agreement with the existing members’ viewpoint. However, most bloggers are quite proud of their status as the “new media”, so I don’t think they see themselves as running mere clubs.
>Public funds are paying for JQ to run this Blog, which makes it a form of publicly funded media.
They are? Can you prove this? Do you know what, if anything, it costs to run this blog? Do you know for a fact that John is taking time off from his teaching duties or other work commitments to post here?
Or is to simpyl your arguemnt that because he recieves a state salary everything he produces belongs to the state?
If, say, a bus driver, builds a shed in his backyard does that belong to the state?
How about if a public servant writes a novel?
Academics are in a rather unique position in that they don’t have set working hours outside lecture times. If you are in a research-only position it is even weirder – given the lack of necessity to attend the only requirement is that you live within a certain travel time of the institution (at least that was the case in one job I had).
But when there are no set working hours every hour is a working hour. That is even formalized in that the Universities I have worked at always owned all my Intellectual Property, no matter when or where I generated it (or at least they claimed to).
Probably as a matter of law, whether a particular activity constitutes part of an academic’s employment would come down to the nature of the activity. In the case of this blog, it seems reasonable that it does fall within the purview of JQ’s job description. At least in a way that, say, his martial arts do not (and so the answers to the bus driver and public servant questions are also negative: those activities are not part of their jobs).