environment – American Disasters

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In his book review entitled, Dusty Volumes: Environmental Disaster and Economic Collapse in the 1930s, Koppes evaluates two pieces written on the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Koppes clearly comes down in favor of the piece written by David Worster, agreeing wholeheartedly with Worster’s thesis identifying capitalism as the great cause of the Dust Bowl. According to Koppes, Worster contends that three maxims that are cultivated by capitalism invariably led to the 1930s disaster. The first is that nature must be seen as capital, the second is that man has a right, or even an obligation to use that capital for self-advancement, and third that social order should both permit and encourage this insatiable pursuit of wealth. Worster then goes on to say that it is this capitalist model that produced the consumption of land and disregard for future environmental repercussions that caused the Dust Bowl.

Price, in his post, finds that Koppes’ argument on behalf of Worster is lacking. He contends that Koppes does not have enough evidence, in the form of actual policy records to make this claim; however, I would have to disagree. Worster’s claim does not hinge on the presence of official policy records that would indicate the presence of capitalist interference, nor does it matter that the farmers were born into a capitalist economy, the problem that Worster is trying to identify is one of culture. The three maxims outlined above are essentially a set of core beliefs or values that are cultivated in a capitalist economy. Worster is arguing that the capitalist system is the perfect petri dish for growing these toxic values which contribute to the reckless consumption of natural resources. While it is possible to draw parallels to policy with respect to this analysis, a cultural study of American values and the way that they manifest themselves would be the most relevant method for seeing Worster’s thesis come to life.

Worster’s research has important implications. As the world comes to recognize more and more environmental problems exacerbated by reckless consumption of natural resources, the more we will search for solutions. However, the solution requires sacrifices we are unwilling to make. It requires that we see the world not as a tool for our advancement above all else, meaning we must essentially change our mental framework. The real question then becomes: is that even possible?

While Galveston never fully regained its premier economic position following the massive destruction of the 1900 hurricane, its efforts to rebuild were extraordinary and reflected both the hubris of the age as well as a a welcomed sense of practicality. The hurricane took the lives of some 6,000 – 8,000 and resulted in property damage amounting to approx. $30 million. Yet despite these tremendous numbers, “there was no public discussion about abandoning the island.” W.L. Moody (who interestingly went on to found American National Insurance Company) told a reporter, “There was no question about it, “Galveston will be rebuilt stronger and better than ever before.”

So with this firm conviction city leaders boldly began to seek out ways in which to “eliminate the dangers of disaster.” CRC Member Ike Kempner, also the city treasurer, was primarily considered with ensuring the economic integrity of Galveston following its destruction. Galveston still boasted a large deep-water port, but the threat of another disaster discouraged investors. So while Galveston desperately needed to protect the city from future disasters, it had to do so in a way as not to disclose the city’s precarious geography. “Building a sea wall or taking other precautionary measures seemed to acknowledge the city’s dangerous position, yet without some moves by Galveston leaders to calm fears of future calamity, people would not remain, return, rebuild, or invest.” In that sense, the efforts to rebuild Galveston were as concerned with erecting sea walls and buildings as with reconstructing a new mindset – that while Galveston was an important economic hub, it was also vulnerable to natural disasters. Galveston became the meeting place of Gilded Age hubris and Progressive practicality. And nowhere was this more evident than in the remarkable construction of the sea wall. An ambitious undertaking to say the least, the sea wall was constructed “with great faith in modern technology and an equal resolve to remain on an unprotected sandbar.”

The seawall still protects the city of Galveston today. It extends almost ten miles along the Gulf of Mexico Side of Galveston, protecting nearly one-third of the beachfront. However the seawall resulted in some unforeseen consequences, like the erosion of the beach in front of the wall. Resultantly, the city must actively engage in “beach renourishment” – in which sand is dredged and brought to the shore. But in 2011 Rice University released a study suggesting that the environmental and economical costs of dredging are so tremendous that in the event of a future hurricane – Galveston should not rebuild some of its coasts. It’s been over one hundred years since the hurricane and we’re still recovering.

Tag: environment

So, What Next?

Rebuilding Galveston: Then and Now