What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
The Texas Wars of
Robert Gates:
On Affirmative
Action and Mexican Migrants
What's Robert
Gates's not-so-distant dirty past? Greg Moses turns over the
dirt in College Station, how Gates fought affirmative action
there and how Reagan and Bush's's slippery spook will run the
new Border War.The End of the Libération
Myth! Meet Libération, turncoat tool of neoliberalism.Pierre
Rimbert traces the decline and fall of one of radical journalism's
great hopes --the paper founded by Jean-Paul Sartre. Daniel Wolff describes how Bob Dylan
plays the music of the Apocalypse. Remember, we are funded solely
by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this
website by buying a
subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you
won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the
cost of this online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
The Bush administration's mishandling
of one of our time's most crucial issues-global climate change-constitutes
a clear and extremely serious case of the abuse of power. Further,
their stunning incompetence and criminal recklessness in the
face of Hurricane Katrina also constitutes a necessary and sufficient
justification for their removal from office.
A human-made
disaster: predictable tragedy
There are few totally "natural"
disasters. We put a city in the way of a natural, predictable
storm, and then call the resulting destruction a natural disaster.
But this is a social disaster. Social disasters don't just
come about from the ignorance of putting a city on a fault line,
in a floodplain, or in the way of forest fires. Social disasters
also come from the state's actions (poor planning, cronyism,
and ideologically-motivated politics) and the needs of capital
(continued growth and consumption of resources without concern
for the future).
What happened in New Orleans
was a preventable social disaster. The hurricane's strength
was due in part to global warming. Destroying wetlands and dredging
canals for development prior to the storm exacerbated the flooding.
The evacuation, such as it was, was inextricably linked to race
and class, and also with the encouraging ability of people to
organize themselves.
Decision-based
fact-making
The Bush administration has
up-ended the normal fact-based decision-making process. They
make decisions and then mold the facts to fit the decision.
Blind emphasis on pro-business and anti-environmental policies,
such as their refusal to negotiate or ratify the Kyoto accord,
the promulgation of ineffectual voluntary pollution control measures,
broad development policies based on market needs, and privatized
solutions to public problems all add together to constitute an
abuse of power in the face of scientific consensus on global
climate change. Virtually all credible scientific studies now
agree that the earth is warming due at least in part to anthropogenic
(i.e., human-induced) causes. And yet since his days as Governor
of Texas, Bush has championed private solutions to public problems
where "voluntary" pollution controls generally amount
to no pollution controls at all.
The science demonstrating global
climate change is clear, and there is a consensus among the scientific
community on the topic. The literature on this topic is truly
voluminous; the most important of research outlets, including
Science and Nature, have published many reports
on the topic, definitively showing the globe's rising temperatures.
While the ten hottest years since record-keeping began in 1861
all happened since 1990, Osborn and Briffa, in their recent article
in Science, have also shown that "the continuing
warmth of the late 20th century is the most widespread and longest
temperature anomaly of any kind" in the last 1200 years.
Field et al show that the water off the California coast "has
become warmer during the late 20th century than it was at any
time during the past 1400 years." They conclude that these
changes are "apparently anthropogenic." The National
Academy of Sciences has published reports on global climate change
since the early 1970s. Their 2001 report "Climate Change
Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions" opens with
a simple statement of the situation "Greenhouse gases are
accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities,
causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures
to rise." The voice of the scientific community is clear.
In March of 2001 Bush announced
that the U.S. would no longer negotiate the Kyoto Accord. The
Protocol went into effect early in 2005, with the agreement of
some 150 nations and requiring emissions reductions in advanced
economies. The U.S. is the single largest user of fossil fuel
energy and producer of greenhouse gases. How could the U.S.
be expected to reduce emissions and curtail economic growth?
As Bush said most clearly in an interview on British television,
"The Kyoto treaty didn't suit our needs." It would,
in fact, be expensive to the U.S.; there is no doubt on that
score. But even prominent members of the corporate world support
the Kyoto Protocol, including General Electric and DuPont, who
see "greening" their image as good for the bottom line.
Business opportunities notwithstanding, refusing to take action
on climate change and denying the scientific reality will be
far more costly to the U.S. and the world in the future. Back
in 1979 the National Academy of Sciences found that "if
CO2 levels continue to increase [there] is no reason to doubt
that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that
these changes will be negligible." They found that "we
may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that
an appreciable climate change is inevitable." The costs
of inaction may be akin to the bumper sticker that I saw the
other day: "Maybe if we ignore the environment, it'll go
away."
Bush and Cheney must be held
accountable for denying global climate change and for not taking
appropriate actions. This abuse of power connects to the fury
of Hurricane Katrina as it destroyed New Orleans and much of
the Gulf Coast. Katrina could not have been stopped-if we put
cities in the way of nature, we have to expect devastation.
But the power of Katrina was fueled by global warming, and action
should have been taken years ago to reduce the probability of
such supercharged storms. These conditioning factors are ideologically-driven
and reflect a gross incompetence by those in power. And
yet even the solutions to Katrina's devastation are similarly
ideological: large private firms have benefited from no-bid contracts
(just as with Iraq), pollution controls were "temporarily"
put on hold, a gulf opportunity zone has been established similar
to export zones in developing nations not subject to normal state
controls, and money has been thrown at the problem rather than
employing careful thought and analysis.
In the face of global warming,
national security threats, and a state that exacerbated the potential
devastation of the Gulf Coast through pro-growth, anti-environmental
policies, what did the Bush administration do to respond to the
disaster? Too little, too late. The Bush administration response
to Hurricane Katrina is emblematic: the denial of the perils
of global warming foreshadowed the denial of disaster in New
Orleans.
Hurricane
Katrina: fiddling while New Orleans floods
The President's response to
Katrina was criminally delayed, indifferent, and inept. As Kanye
West's public comment exhibits, many observers concluded that
"George Bush doesn't care about Black people." Just
after the disaster in New Orleans Bush spoke of "taking
aggressive action against deep and persistent poverty with roots
in a history of racial discrimination." In the span of
about two weeks, however, the Republicans were busy blaming the
victims themselves, saying that the poverty of the evacuees was
clear evidence that the last three decades of governmental poverty
alleviation programs had clearly not worked. Such comments denigrated
the people of New Orleans, suggesting that entitlement programs
were at fault for creating dependency amongst the destitute.
And yet the most damaging form of entitlement is the gift of
a political office based on political connections rather than
ability, and this cronyism contributed directly to the devastation.
That New Orleans is extremely
vulnerable to tropical storms has been long understood. Indeed,
FEMA's 2001 list of the top three most likely and most devastating
disasters were a San Francisco earthquake, a terrorist attack
on New York, and a category 4 hurricane hitting New Orleans.
As former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal wrote, "No
one can say that they didn't see it coming." A five-day
hurricane simulation exercise was undertaken in 2004, mimicking
a Katrina-like event. This exercise combined the National Weather
Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the LSU Hurricane
Center and other state and federal agencies, and FEMA's regional
director suggested that great progress was made in developing
emergency response plans. These plans, however, were not implemented
in part due to the federal slashing of funds for protection.
Thus, while Bush and Cheney speak virtually daily of the dangers
of terrorism, they ignored completely the number one item on
their list of likely disasters.
From the Bush administration's
first days, FEMA received little attention, and any notice it
got was for potential budget cuts. Bush's first appointee as
head of FEMA was a Texas crony, Joe Allbaugh, who had no prior
disaster experience. In late 2001 the Bush administration announced
that it wanted to privatize and downsize much of FEMA, with Allbaugh
claiming that "many are concerned that federal disaster
assistance may have evolved into an oversized entitlement program."
Allbaugh soon left FEMA to start a consulting business, and
was replaced by another crony, Michael Brown. As part of the
federal government's reorganization, the Bush administration
brought FEMA into the new Department of Homeland Security and
demoted it to a non-cabinet level position.
In the year before Hurricane
Katrina hit, the Bush administration continued to cut budgets
and deny grants to the Gulf Coast. In June of 2004 the Army
Corps of Engineers levee budget for New Orleans was cut, and
it was cut again in June of 2005, this time by $71.2 million
or 44% of their budget. Adding insult to injury, in 2004 FEMA
denied a Louisiana disaster mitigation grant request. As Walter
Maestri, the Jefferson Parish emergency management chief told
the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
It appears that the money has
been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security
and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody
locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are
doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security
issue for us.
Bush, in other words, did worse
than nothing. The administration slashed budgets for levee restoration,
downgraded FEMA from a cabinet position, and considered privatizing
the entire agency. Given that their budget was cut nearly in
half, the Corps was forced to stop levee improvement projects,
discontinue a study of how best to protect New Orleans, and institute
a hiring freeze. This in the midst of what would become the
longest and strongest hurricane season in recorded history.
The budget cuts stand in stark contrast to the infrastructure
investment of other nations that face such threats.
Since Watergate, the classic
question has become "What did they know, and when did they
know it?" The answer, in this situation, is they knew it
all, and they knew at least 24 hours in advance. The White House
was given multiple warnings that Hurricane Katrina had a high
likelihood of causing serious damage to New Orleans and the Gulf
Coast. At 10 AM on Sunday 28 August 2005, the day before the
storm hit, the National Weather Service published an alert under
the title "DEVASTATING DAMAGE EXPECTED," the text of
which was printed in all capital letters:
HURRICANE KATRINA...A MOST
POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED STRENGTH ... MOST OF THE
AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS ... AT LEAST ONE HALF OF
WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. HIGH
RISE OFFICE AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS WILL SWAY DANGEROUSLY ...
A FEW TO THE POINT OF TOTAL COLLAPSE. ALL WINDOWS WILL BLOW OUT.
POWER OUTAGES WILL LAST FOR WEEKS. WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE
HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.
The Homeland Security Department
also briefed the White House on the scenario, warning of levee
breaches and severe flooding. According to the New YorkTimes, "a Homeland Security Department report submitted
to the White House at 1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, hours before the
storm hit, said, 'Any storm rated Category 4 or greater will
likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching.'"
This document, made public by a Senate investigation, clearly
contradicts the statements made by both President Bush and Homeland
Security Director Michael Chertoff immediately after the storm,
that such devastation could not have been predicted. On 1 September
2005 President Bush said "I don't think anyone anticipated
the breach of the levees." But the devastation was predicted,
and both Bush and Chertoff were informed, and then they lied
about it.
So the weather service told
them it was coming, as did the only FEMA agent on the ground
and the Department of Homeland Security itself. What was it
that administration officials did while New Orleans flooded?
Bush, Cheney, and other members of the cabinet were not inconvenienced:
the President gave an unrelated speech at a Naval air station
in San Diego, comparing himself favorably to FDR, with a media
photo-op of him strumming a guitar (not fiddling, as Nero did).
The Vice President remained fly-fishing on vacation in Wyoming.
Other senior members of the administration vacationed in Maine
and the New York Daily News reported that Condoleezza
Rice went shopping at Ferragamo on Fifth Avenue and bought several
thousand dollars worth of shoes.
In the immediate aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina Marty Bahamonde, the only FEMA employee
posted by Brown in New Orleans, emailed Michael Brown from his
mobile device 31 August 2005 regarding the conditions. The email
is urgent and detailed:
The situation is past criticalHotels
are kicking people out, thousands gathering in the streets without
food or waterEstimates are many will die within hoursWe are without
food and running water at the [Super]dome.
Brown's reply was emblematic of the administration's entire response
to the catastrophe: "Thanks for the update. Anything specific
I need to do or tweak?" Further emails showed him to be
incomprehensibly removed from the reality of victims' pain and
suffering. Brown seemed to be more concerned with his appearances
and fashion sense than addressing the crisis in New Orleans.
On 29 August 2006 he replied to Marty Bahamonde who made a comment
about feeling nauseous: "If you'll look at my lovely FEMA
attire you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god." On the
same day, again via email, Cindy Taylor told Brown he looked
fabulous, to which he replied "I got it at Nordstrom. Email
McBride and make sure she knows. Are you proud of me? Can I
quit now? Can I go home?"
Gross incompetence is clearly
demonstrated by ignoring the warnings and by the actual response
once the federal government got under way. Failure to act under
these circumstances demonstrates criminal negligence. This was
a disaster they knew was coming. And they dare to declare themselves
our best hope against terrorism and disasters?
What did people do in response
to this lawlessness, this lack of security, this climate of uncertainty,
death, and destruction? They organized themselves so as to overcome.
What is most brilliant in this disaster is the ability of the
people themselves to solve the problems that the authorities
cannot solve or will not face. The people of New Orleans did
not all act with integrity-that much is clear. But most of them
did, most of the time. While race and class clearly constructed
the chances of individuals to get out, these same folks responded
to such indignities by developing the types of systems that actually
solve problems in the face of governmental incompetence.
Denise Moore was evacuated
to the Ernest Morial Convention Center. She was there for two
days without food or water. Shelter was not conducive to human
existence since it was, in her words, nightmarish:
Inside the convention center,
the place was one huge bathroom. ... Most people stayed outside
because the smell was so bad. But outside wasn't much better:
between the heat, the humidity, the lack of water, the old and
very young dying from dehydration ... and there was no place
to lay down, not even room on the sidewalk. Young men went
to Canal Street and "looted," and brought back food
and water for the old people and the babies, because nobody had
eaten in days.
She saw some men shoot at the
police, because after some time "all the people thought
the cops were coming to hurt them, to kill them all."
They all believed they were sent there to die, and it was the
looters who saved them: "If it wasn't for them," she
said, "we wouldn't have had the little water and food they
had found. I will never look at thugs and gangsters the same
way again."
In the face of disaster and
official incompetence, we see the ability of people to solve
their own problems. Without the assistance of those in power,
people banded together and established a semblance of order.
Young men, who in other times would have been feared as "thugs"
or "gangsters," organized the crowd and kept violence
to a minimum. All this as the National Guard, the Army, and
what police were left drove by with their guns pointed at the
people whom they are sworn to serve and protect, treating them
like criminals, not citizens.
The politics
of refusal
Global climate change was denied,
science was suppressed, budgets were cut, warnings were ignored,
the response was bungled, and the people were left to their own
devices. What is to be done to fix New Orleans and the Gulf
Coast infrastructure? The federal government has promised $3.1
billion to rebuild levees in New Orleans, half of which will
go to fixing Katrina-damaged levees. Bush has asked Congress
for another $1.5 billion, of which a measly $250 million will
be used to restore wetlands. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has raised the estimated cost to $9.5 billion. The levee re-construction
is supposed to be completed by 1 June 2006, but a number of experts
have stated that this would be physically impossible to accomplish
properly. Moreover, back in 2002 the Corps completed a study
that determined what needed to be done to protect New Orleans,
and they concluded that further study was needed-a study that
would take six years to complete. If it takes six years to determine
what needs to be done, how do they propose to finish doing it
by June 2006? Indeed, they did not.
And who will do this work?
Local contractors will be tapped to do some of the work, but
many of the billions will go to the same corporations that are
"re-building" Iraq (after the Bush administration bombed
the infrastructure in the first place): Halliburton, Bechtel
and others with strong connections to the administration. More
cronyism is not the answer.
With full foreknowledge, the
Bush administration ignored the disaster. They denied its existence.
Then they denied its severity. They denied their responsibility
to protect and rescue people. And they have denied its real cause:
global warming. Bush has refused to engage with environmental
reality. There has been a real need to address the coming environmental
crisis for at least a decade, the refusal to do so, and the criminally
negligent response to the disaster of Hurricane Katrina is emblematic
of how the Bush administration has denied the environmental consequences
of their inaction. This gross incompetence-their startlingly
inept (non)reaction to Hurricane Katrina, the denial of global
warming, the refusal to ameliorate environmental damages-constitutes
a most egregious case of the abuse of power, and stands on its
own as enough reason to impeach the President and his administration.
This work is excerpted from
a book chapter by Prof. Wehr in Impeach the President: The
case against Bush and Cheney edited by Peter Phillips and
Dennis Loo from Seven Stories Press.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
