Julie Blayne has lost sight of the scope in which Jake Blumberg was referring to the New Orleans disaster, and the projected project that was shot down in order to protect the wetlands. She makes a bold claim in stating that the people of New Orleans chose to live in the city of New Orleans. Taking measures to protect these people was an unnecessary convenience.
New Orleans is known as one of the most impoverished cities in the US. Nearly one-third of the population before Hurricane Katrina struck lived below the poverty level. To state that these people chose to live in New Orleans, and could have chosen to live anywhere else in the country, is preposterous.
Most poor people in New Orleans were there because they were born there, and could not move out if they wanted to. Recall the reports after the storm, thousands of people were stranded in the city. Most of these people didn't stay because they were stubborn. The fact is simple, they could not afford to leave.
The government found itself scrambling after the Katrina disaster while trying to help the people. Had the floodgates been built, the damage would have been much less severe, and the death toll would have been lower. Is it the government's job to pull people out after a major natural disaster? Or would it be wiser to take preventative measures that would invariably save lives? Damage to the wetlands would have been a justified cost, and it is nowhere near the magnitude of strip mining or burning the rainforest.
I will not disagree that protecting the environment is necessary, but compromises must be made. Granted, we still have a great place for a nature photo shoot that continues to maintain the circle of life. But please, go tell the families of the 1,078 dead in Louisiana that the black goo was more important than their loved ones' life.