Some ask the one-word question, “Why?” Others, like me, ask a second one-word question, “What?” What can be done to minimize the damage? What can be done to avoid the damage? Unlike the answer to the “Why?” question, the answer to “What?” can be answered, but it’s complicated by the reality that the best solutions aren’t always realistic. And that is very frustrating to me.
Years ago, shortly after
Hurricane Ike wreaked havoc on Houston, I recall reading an article in The Observer by Steve Cohen, who wrote: “I advocate developing a more realistic and
routine process for dealing with these events and their aftermath… In addition
to reconstruction, it may be time to take another look at our 20th century
industrial age infrastructure.”
This
made sense to me as well, though my first thought was that we keep building
where we shouldn’t and we keep rebuilding every time our cities and towns are
destroyed. In my mind, it’s an expensive
and unnecessarily waste of time and resources. The solution seemed
straightforward by asking a third one-word question: “Where?” Where can we go to avoid the problems in the
first place? The answer: Don’t rebuild in place. Rebuild safely and in a less vulnerable
location.
But here’s where reality
takes hold and the need to develop more pragmatic solutions that work within
the fabric of our American society becomes more important. In his article, Cohen expanded on his
suggestion, saying:
"As the planet has gotten
more crowded, more of us have settled in places that are vulnerable to natural
disasters. I don’t think this trend is going to be reversed. Moreover, our
lifestyles depend on electricity, transport, food, waste disposal and water that
is sold to us by large centralized public and private organizations. The
proportion of people who grow their own food, use well water, septic systems
and compost their own garbage is lower every year. This means that we are
increasingly vulnerable to disasters like Katrina or Ike.
"It’s time to start working
on ways to reduce our vulnerability. Some of the answer is better emergency
response and more reliable reconstruction. But an important part of the answer
is to develop and implement technologies that allow our urban population to use
less centralized infrastructure. There
are, of course, powerful economic interests that will oppose this idea. That’s
because they own and operate the centralized and vulnerable infrastructure that
we rely on.
"My hope is that the companies that develop these less centralized
technologies will succeed in selling them to the public. Just as laptops
replaced mainframe computers, and Apple iPods replaced the SONY Walkman,
someday, small household renewable electricity generators might replace the
power grid."
If it’s just not realistic
to expect entire cities in the paths of hurricanes (e.g., Miami, Houston, New
Orleans) or earthquake prone countries (Mexico, Italy) to up and move to avoid
damage, it’s time to take very hard look at fourth one-word question: “How?” How do we create less vulnerable and resilient
human settlements? How can we convince governments, municipalities, homeowners
and insurance companies to build (and rebuild) in a way that truly reduces potential
loss of life and property from natural events?
Decentralization, less reliance on regional utility and distribution
systems, and the construction of less vulnerable structures of all types is the
mainstay of hazard mitigation for many types of events where those in harm’s
way cannot easily be relocated. The
techniques and solutions are there and should be implemented at all levels.
Which brings me to a final
one-word question: “When?” When should
we do this? Now!
No comments:
Post a Comment