True, Myr...of course, I think people should pretty much be allowed to do what they want so long as it does not unduly infringe on the rights of others. If you want to build your house in a flood plain...feel free. On the otherhand, I am an uncaring bastard and so I do not think the government ought to be offering you flood insurance if you do...nor do I think the government ought to be investing enormous sums of tax dollars in levies designed to keep your ill advised home dry. If the river floods...as they tend to do...and your home is washed away you can either rebuild it yourself or relocate to a less flood prone area.

Well, I'm with you on that for new construction. But what about old construction, stuff that was done when the world's mindset was "Man can rape Nature any way he likes!"

Point in case: New Orleans, built *below* the levels of Lake Pontchartrain, a long time ago. It's a big city, a national landmark, protected by levees. Should we abandon the city when it floods, or rebuild it? You know it will flood again in the future. Part of Manhattan is below sea level... on the lower floor of skyscapers in the low end of New York City there are "Break Glass In Case Of Emergency" stations in the wall that contain small scuba tanks and goggles (one per every 500 people) in case of sudden flood. Washington DC was built on a swamp.

Now, we all know we shouldn't build stupidly like that any more, but what about national landmark cities that *were* put in risky places? Should the government sink money into protecting those? DC? NYC? The Big Easy?

For the sole sake of historical preservation, no.

As for Americans farming in Brazil or building anything in a foreign country, I'm reminded of a story they like to tell at work.

Several years ago, there was a massage parlor. We'll call it "The Happy Ending" massage parlor. I think you get my drift. Well, one night the cops raided the place and one of the patrons was hauled out, in front of the local news cameras, wearing his work uniform. He was not there on behalf of the company in any way. Still though, since the media had his name and employer, the lead in was "Local Sewerage Worker Busted In Prostitution Sting".

The point is, when you look like a representative of something, people will look at you as a representative of that thing, even if you aren't, officially. When Americans do business abroad, even for their own personal gain with no official ties to US diplomacy, they are still seen as Americans and viewed as representatives of, or at least representations of, Americans. They should conduct their business accordingly.

The historical areas, if they are worth saving as a national treasure, should be saved, but any normal dwellings should be not be rebuild in such areas, nor should the area build upon in such areas be expanded. The property owners should be compensated, but not allowed to rebuild, or perhaps they should be discouraged or given financial incentives not to rebuild. The local government with their powers of rezoning land would have a major part to play in this.



I am not sure I fully agree with Lawmage on the "I think people should pretty much be allowed to do what they want so long as it does not unduly infringe on the rights of others" statement, unless he also includes the right of future generations to be able to enjoy certain natural treasures that the US has. There could be much debate about individual rights as well as individual responsibilities with regards to this subject. I more or less agree with the rest of his post, even though I am not a heartless bastard either.

Whenever a news reporter interviews someone whose home was destroyed in a flood, or some other type of natural disaster in an area that's prone to them (e.g. areas prone to earthquakes, mudslide, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, tornados) where these same types of disasters happens all the time, reliably, there's one phrase that is always said that makes me grind my teeth.... "And the InsertNameHere family, who lost everything in the insertdisasterhere, have vowed to rebuild."

Vowed to rebuild. Vowed to rebuild. You hear that every time. As though they were saying "nyah nyah, in your FACE, Nature, you won't flood US out again, or knock our city down with ANOTHER earthquake, or etc etc." What saps!

Myrddin says "The property owners should be compensated, but not allowed to rebuild, or perhaps they should be discouraged or given financial incentives not to rebuild. The local government with their powers of rezoning land would have a major part to play in this." This is so completely sensible that it never happens. They always rebuild in the same place, and 5, 10, 30 years later they are wiped out to the ground and shking their fists at Nature again, vowing to rebuild. It pisses me off.

Regarding farming in what once was rainforest: I have been given to understand that rainforest soil is extremely poor in nutrients, and that crops do not do well in it. How are American farmers wheedling harvests out of such soil?

The ancient peoples which lived in the rainforest, had a technique of making such soil rich; the soil is known today as "Terra Preta do Indio". I am not sure if such techniques would work well with modern farming methods.

Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!

Indeed, James Hansen is now placing it in the center stage of <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf">pro-active solutions</a> for the climate crisis.

If you would like to get out of the noisy arguments and into the positive vision, please check out <a href="http://biocharfund.com/"
>Biochar.fund</a> and <a href="http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/">beyondzeroemissions</a>.

The BBC documentary <a href="http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=secret+of+el+dorado&sitesearch=#">The Secret of El Dorado</a> is what propelled Terra Preta into global awareness and the Australians especially have been providing <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm">exciting documentaries</a> about current applications.

And if you would like to plunge deeper there is a great terra preta forum and information archive <a href="http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/">here</a>.


Thanks for giving biochar your consideration.

There is considerable research going on to see if we can develop a process that can duplicate--or improve on--this charcoal-based soil enrichment process. There was money in the draft of the 2007 budget to expand that research, but I don't know if it survived the budget approval process. One neat thing about it is that it increases soil fertility up to 35%, sustainably in perpetuity, while being Carbon Negative (ie, it sequesters Carbon Dioxide back into the soil. The common slash-and-burn process currently used in the rain-forests results in sterile soil within a few years, after which the farm is moved to another spot.

S.1884 – The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007

A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:

Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative

for the 2007 Farm Bill

http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html

Bolstering Biomass and Biochar development: In the 2007 Farm Bill, Senator Salazar was able to include $500 million for biomass research and development and for competitive grants to develop the technologies and processes necessary for the commercial production of biofuels and bio-based products. Biomass is an organic material, usually referring to plant matter or animal waste. Using biomass for energy can reduce waste and air pollution. Biochar is a byproduct of producing energy from biomass. As a soil treatment, it enhances the ability of soil to capture and retain carbon dioxide.

( Update; In conference the $500 M was cut to $3M....:( )

Oh. What a surprise.