Renewable Energy: Too Little, Too Late

http://www.postcarbon.org/node/1207

Renewable Energy: Too Little, Too Late
Submitted by seandeau on Fri, 2005-10-14 22:30.

Big Renewables cannot replace Big Oil. In fact, Big Renewables IS Big Oil

Presented by Michael Kane at the NYC PetroCollapse Conference, October 5th, 2005

When you combine the seven deadly sins with high technology, you get some really serious problems. You get turbo-sins. It’s dreadful to imagine what goeth after turbo-pride.
James Howard Kunstle

Renewable energy may offer a way into a sustainable future, but not without massive conservation efforts and a drastic shift in human consciousness. – MK

This paper focuses on the limitations of big renewable energy technologies and, more importantly, how society lacks the proper mind state and will to address the Peak Oil crisis appropriately. I conclude by taking a look at what people can do to prepare themselves for what is to come, as well as looking at small renewable technologies which may be helpful going forward.

***

WHO IS ACORE? WHAT’S THE CURRENT REALITY OF RENEWABLES?

The American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) is the leading national advocacy group for renewable energy. ACORE members include former CIA and military officials, as well as many individuals in all sectors of the energy industry. [1] Recently ACORE unintentionally revealed exactly why renewables offer no escape from the certain Peak Oil crisis.

A recent ACORE press release stated, “What are the national policies that will result in renewable energy contributing 20%, 30%, 40% of national energy supply by 2020- 2030-2040?” [2]

20% renewable energy by 2020 is no solution for the Peak Oil crisis that is here now, and there are other participants at this conference who will show that the crisis is upon us now: at best we have till 2007 especially considering that The Powers That Be are behaving as if Peak is happening now.

We are in a race against time.

So what does an energy intensive society do as it begins to run out of its main energy source? You use whatever you’ve got. And that is what ACORE is calling “Phase 2.”

Phase 2 is the mass deployment of renewable energy projects in America, which is way behind that of the Europeans. I will be speaking about a number of renewable energy sources and what they have to offer a society of over-consumption.

But what is critical to understand at the outset is that renewables are not being viewed as a way to transition away from, or even to limit, the consumption of hydrocarbons, but rather to supplement over-consumption.

Sylvain Santamarta of Shell Renewables confirmed this fact at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum in NYC (REFF – Wall St) in June of this year, when he stated Shell will continue to invest in renewables – especially wind – since they are a valid and valuable supplement to hydrocarbons.

So why do I say the problem is lack of proper mind state and will?

Shell, BP, GE and other oil majors have big interests in renewable energy. Big Oil IS Big Renewables. Now renewable projects are being massively deployed by the military to fine tune its killing machine as it battles for dominance over the last remaining hydrocarbon reserves on the planet. This is what I call SUSTAINABLE DESTRUCTION.

With renewables being used to supplement over-consumption and promote SUSTAINABLE DESTRUCTION, there is no possible way renewable energy can offer a path to true sustainability. A massive shift in human consciousness is a prerequisite to any hope of technological mitigation of the Peak Oil crisis.

WIND

Without question, wind is the biggest economic winner in the field of renewables to date. Wind farms can produce hundreds of megawatts of energy, putting them on par with many traditional power plants. But the challenges facing the wind industry are vast, and the limitations are enormous, especially in comparison to hydrocarbons.

The most optimistic estimates by the Global Wind Energy Council show that, at best, wind could represent 12% of global energy supply by 2020. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that America could possibly have 6% of its energy provided by wind in 2020. [3]

But that is just the value on paper.

Wind farms operate at around 40% efficiency. So the actual energy would be approximately 6% of global capacity and 3% of America’s by 2020. This number may be slightly higher when we consider that offshore wind farms have a higher efficiency rating than those onshore. While the financial institutions are ready to put up the needed capital for offshore projects, there are mostly cold feet throughout the industry as everyone wonders whether these projects will ultimately be profitable. I will discuss offshore wind farms later in this paper.

Europe is light-years ahead of America in wind energy, and Germany leads the world.

The German numbers are painting a dismal picture for wind’s capacity. E.ON Netz – one of the world’s largest private energy providers – owns over 40% of Germany’s wind generating capacity. They released a report titled “WIND REPORT 2004” stating that wind energy requires “shadow stations” of traditional energy on back-up reserve in case the wind forecast is wrong. They state that reserve capacity needs to be 60% to 80% of the total wind capacity! So as more wind comes on line, it is all but certain that more hydrocarbon reserve capacity will be required, further demonstrating how renewable energy is used to supplement over-consumption. [4]

The main problem with wind energy is intermittency: the wind doesn’t always blow.

Martin Fuchs, CEO of E.ON Netz stated the following at a June press conference in Munich this year:

"On 12 September, wind power supplies covered up to 38% of our grid power requirements at times. This was the highest value achieved during the past year. On 30 September, on the other hand, this figure was down to 0.2 % – the lowest value of the year"
...

"The random nature of the wind energy supply means that control and compensation energy requirements, for the provision of which transmission system operators are responsible, are constantly increasing"

Fuchs went on to state that when Germany’s wind capacity increases to its expected 48,000 Megawatt capacity by 2020, it will only be responsible for replacing 2000 Megawatts of traditional, thermally generated power. In short, wind energy – the best renewable energy technology available to date – offers no hope of mitigating the Peak Oil crisis without massive conservation efforts that are nowhere in sight.

Even less known is a study conducted by Scientist David Keith, using computer generated simulations, where it was concluded if the world is eventually over saturated with wind turbines they could change wind patterns contributing to climate change. While this thesis has not been fully explored, it clearly indicates that unless mankind actively seeks to minimize our footprints upon the earth, we are doomed to repeat the same failures of our current energy paradigm: the failure of over-consumption through the exploitation of nature. [5]

OFFSHORE WIND

The big buzz in the wind industry lies offshore.

Offshore wind farms are the next frontier in the industry because these winds are sustained at high rates over long periods of time posing less intermittency. The problem is that no one is jumping into these projects for multiple reasons.

Who will pay for the new transmission lines out to sea? Can you get that energy inland cheaply and efficiently enough to be profitable? What happens if turbines break and you can’t get to them due to harsh weather? Most estimates have shown many offshore wind farms would be inaccessible for repair throughout most of the year.

Many in the industry argue that massive offshore projects are the only way to empower wind on a large scale. Large orders of turbines and services funded by multinational corporations would cause prices to drop dramatically. But regardless, by all estimates, none of these offshore farms have a chance to mitigate Peak Oil even if the best case scenario posed by industry leaders came to pass.

The first offshore project in America – Cape Wind in Cape Cod, Massachusetts – is facing huge NIMBY opposition. The rich folk of Martha’s Vineyard may change their tune when natural gas shortages and price spikes become grim realities.

Perhaps ironically, many “conservatives” already realize this.

For example, Theodore Roosevelt IV, the great grandson of our 26th President and a registered Republican, lives on Martha’s Vineyard and is the managing director of Lehman Brothers, who is providing Cape Wind with financial advisory services. When Cape Wind’s 420 MW of power come online, Roosevelt is certain to be receiving that power into his home.

Meanwhile American “liberals” in Massachusetts are opposing the country’s first offshore wind farm. This includes Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy, whose family owns interests in natural gas pipelines in Massachusetts.

The wind industry argues that wind was never intended to solve all of our energy problems, and cannot be viewed in isolation from all other energy sources. This is a concession that everything I have said today is correct. Renewable projects should be developed, but we must be realistic about what they can and cannot provide to society.

BIG SOLAR

There is a technology called “Solar Thermal” or Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) that is just now hitting the market, but it is not new technology. It is over 20 years old and was capable of generating just as much energy when first developed as it does today.

Why was it held back for two decades?

It appears those financially involved with the technology were waiting for the right time to deploy it for the highest profit yield. This technology is being brought to the desert taking up 7 square miles to produce 500 MW of energy 70 miles north of Los Angeles. Thus far this only seems capable of large production in the desert. Other projects using this technology that are not in the desert are designed to produce less than 10 MW.

The environmental impact of these massive installations on the fragile ecosystem of the desert is uncertain, which will likely depend largely on how many of these installations are constructed. This is decent technology, but quite limited. It will ultimately hold a similar capacity to that of wind power generation at best.

If we are extremely lucky, solar thermal and wind will account for a true 15% of society’s energy capacity by 2020. That is simply no replacement for hydrocarbons.

The first major installation of solar thermal technology is headed by Stirling energy in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, Boeing and SAIC – three of the largest military contractors on the planet. This is completely different from photovoltaic (PV) solar panels commonly installed on rooftops.

HYDROGEN AND BIOFUELS

The cruelest of all myths concerning renewable energy is known as “the hydrogen economy.” We have yet to see any significant indication that hydrogen fuel cells will be capable of successfully moving the transportation sector away from fossil fuels. There are some vehicles being tested today, but they are literally time bombs waiting to explode, as a hydrogen fuel cell can be very dangerous if compromised in an accident. More importantly, the net energy gained compared with the net energy used in the process of storing energy in a hydrogen fuel cell is low. It is not an energy efficient system. Fuel cells function at lower than 40% efficiency, often much lower.[6]

There is a lot of rhetoric claiming one day hydrogen cars will be powered by renewable energy on the grid. This will never happen – not on the scale of 700 million automobiles. The intermittent nature of renewables cannot sustain such a massive system of inefficient over-consumption. The only way the hydrogen economy becomes remotely feasible is with a massive deployment of nuclear power plants.

When you hear “hydrogen economy,” think “nuclear power.”

Biofuels are good-and-fine as long as there is plenty of oil to burn. Getting a massive feedstock of corn husks to create biodiesel can only be done within the hydrocarbon intensive world of petro-farming. Once hydrocarbons are removed from the picture, try harvesting all of that corn by hand. Try not using petroleum-based pesticides and see what your yield will be. Try finding a replacement for the commercial fertilizers that are derived from natural gas.

And if you wanted to power every single truck in America (excluding cars) with biodiesel you would have to cover the entire nation’s surface with crops dedictated to the creation of fuel. Biofuels are great for recycling, not for fueling a massive society of over-consumers.

SYNTHETIC FUELS

Synthetic fuels are soon to be coming to market much more aggressively as the oil crunch tightens. One technique for creating such fuel is by extracting hydrogen from water, recycling CO2 from coal-fired emissions, and processing the two together to form a synthetic hydrocarbon.

The first problem is that there aren’t many facilities that can make synthetic fuels, so massive investment into infrastructure is needed. The second problem is that this is not a highly efficient way to produce fuel. Electricity is needed to extract hydrogen from water and to capture CO2 from coal emissions. And no one is considering the fact that the world is starting to run out of fresh water to exploit due to over-consumption. Desalination is not the answer to that problem, as it is energy intensive and environmentally disastrous. Lastly, but most importantly, the CO2 that is captured from coal emissions will eventually be released into the atmosphere when consumed as fuel, further contributing to global warming.

This is not a renewable technology. At best, this is a band aid that will be placed on a severed artery. If synthetic fuels become a major part of our energy paradigm we will soon be facing both a coal shortage and yet another environmental crisis. Hitler made synthetic fuel during World War II when Germany no longer had access to abundant oil reserves. It was inefficient, but the war machine must have oil.

So must America.

SUSTAINABLE DESTRUCTION: The Military Marriage with Renewables

The military has documented all renewable energy projects within 100 miles of their installations. It is army policy to purchase renewable energy whenever possible, and many military installations are installing renewables on base.

The Naval base at Guantanamo Bay has wind turbines on base to supplement power needs.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=33704

Ethanol/Diesel blends are being tested at military bases
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=34180

National Guard Training Center Goes Solar http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=aJxQmFtXV9jd?id=35491

Camouflage Solar Panels
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=aWNH14gpzaGg?id=28183

Solar Powered Tents in the Military
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000989.html

CURRENT MIND STATE = DESTRUCTION IS PROFITABLE

POWERDOWN is the only solution. That is, the intentional decrease of energy consumption by the entire industrial world to avoid a die-off. But at the second Peak Oil Conference in Paris, Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik stated that it may not be profitable to slow the decline of Peak Oil.

So then what would be profitable?

Perhaps it was best stated by Ray Liotta in the acclaimed mafia film Good Fellas when he said, “you light a match”.

Torch the place. Burn the American economy to the ground and make money on the way down. The super-rich know how to profit off of a depression. America represents 5% of global population consuming 25% of the resources. Unless consumption is intentionally slowed down, Americans may be the sacrificial pigs.

Is this the plan of the elite? Who knows, but especially in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it can’t be ruled out.

WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS

Small wind turbines should be investigated, and perhaps, invested into by those who can afford to do so. However it may not be possible to install such systems in urban or suburban areas. Law likely prohibits this, and it may be a good time to take strides towards finding out what the legislation is in your area and how, or if, this can be changed. There is a good online handbook addressing small wind turbine installations. Wind and solar hybrid systems are discussed and look somewhat promising. [7]

Fire places and wood burning stoves are good investments. It is best to burn cedar and maple woods, seasoned for at least 6 months. After 4 years the wood may start to lose carbon content and burn less efficiently. A good tarp covering the wood to avoid getting water logged is important.

It would be wise to have supplies for a minimum of 2 weeks on hand in your home. Lighters, matches, candles, flashlights, batteries, crank radio, heavy blankets, bottled water, and canned goods are necessities in times of blackouts, crisis or shortages. Make sure to store things that you need as opposed to accumulated junk from years past. In case of problems with municipal water systems, it is worth having multiple buckets/barrels that could be used to collect rainwater or rainwater run-off.

Run-off comes from your roof and is quite an efficient form of water collection. However, roofing shingles are made with petroleum which may present a problem for human consumption. Perhaps a tarp can be set up to gather water and funnel it into a barrel or bucket. Let your roof or tarp be pounded for a long period of time before starting your collection – this should help rinse off chemicals. Jan Lundberg can go into further detail on this, as I first read about this from his own experience living in the redwood forest.

Relocation should be considered. Water and food are primary concerns. Electricity is a luxury that is not required for survival; you can go to sleep when it is dark, and wake to the sun. Ready yourself for a humble lifestyle, as the Indigenous Natives of what is rightly called Turtle Island [8] have told us for so long.

Ultimately – based upon the current will and mind state of society – I am convinced there won’t be any tech-“no-logic” solutions, as my dear friend Tiokasin Ghost Horse has profoundly stated on many occasions. Internalizing critical knowledge and cultivating spiritual practice are the only way forward to true sustainability.

peace eternal
m>k<

For more information on Renewables, see:

Renewables Part 1 by Michael Kane
Renewables Part 2 by Michael Kane
Renewables Part 3 by Michael Kane

The Demise of Business as Usual by Thomas L. Wayburn, PhD

more on renewable energy here:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/010305_energy_deployment.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040405_writing_wall.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040405_writing_wall.shtml#1
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/072605_world_stories.shtml#1

Matt Savinar Esq. on renewable energy

***Explore Matt’s entire web site for high quality information on how to survive Peak Oil.

Surviving Peak Oil – Dale Allen Pfeiffer’s website

***EXCELLENT resource for low-tech solutions that will ultimately be of greater value than solar panels or wind turbines.

Alice Friedemann on Hydrogen

end notes and sources:

[1] Former CIA Director James Woolsey, who is currently a VP with Booz, Allen & Hamilton, is on ACORE’s advisory board. And Michael Eckhart, a former Principal of Booz, Allen & Hamilton, is the ACORE President.

[2] http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/market/business/viewstory?id=36533

[3] http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=8&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=673b3730b0

[4] While hydropower can also be used as back-up capacity for wind, nuclear power cannot due to technical limitations. Hydropower is a good counterbalance for wind energy where it is available. The problem with hydro capacity is drought, and as climate change continues there are signs that drought will worsen as the world water crisis deepens.

[5] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4161624

[6] http://www.energybulletin.net/2401.html?ENERGYBULL=3f111b51386b890bdf16abbd3c38e150

[7] http://www.awea.org/smallwind/documents/permitting.pdf

[8] “Turtle Island” is the true indigenous name for what is commonly referred to as “North America.”

Politics Mondays: The Intentional Destruction Of Levees in New Orleans – A Conspiracy Theory? Not In The Light Of History.

http://www.blackelectorate.com/print_article.asp?ID=1476

Politics Mondays: The Intentional Destruction Of Levees in New Orleans – A Conspiracy Theory? Not In The Light Of History.

"There is no perspective," a friend of mine living outside of the United States wrote to me in an e-mail, a few weeks back. He was referring to the American media coverage regarding Hurricane Katrina, as well as the reaction and thinking of many in response to the disaster. In that, and subsequent e-mail exchanges he has placed emphasis on relevant examples, analogies, parallels and precedents from recorded history – all over the world, that he believes help to place what happened in the Gulf Coast and across America over the last 40 days in perspective.

Three meanings of the word "perspective" according to yourdictionary.com are: 1) The relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole 2) Subjective evaluation of relative significance; a point of view and 3) The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance.

I often find that most people with deep emotional attachments to political ideologies, among other worldviews, lack "perspective", as the word is defined in its first and third meanings above. One such influential group within the much larger body of those who ardently subscribe to political ideologies, that many of us are familiar with, are political talk show hosts – on both cable and radio. The recent ‘explosion’ of conservative talk radio, in particular, and its influence on public opinion and the decision-making of American elected officials is an interesting study, related to this concept and word – perspective.

Recently, as it relates to the controversy that has erupted over Minister Louis Farrakhan’s suggestion and hypothesis that a levee breach, or crevasse, in New Orleans was intentionally affected by an explosion; I have noted that much of the public discussion and ‘uproar’ over the Minister’s publicly expressed thinking has been heavily influenced by opinion leading talk show hosts. Those, within that group that I have paid closest attention to over the last two weeks are Mr. Sean Hannity and Mr. Larry Elder. I have listened periodically to both of their radio shows for several years, and in terms of their profession, I see both of these men as talented, interesting, and successful. I do not consider them to be journalists and I do realize that their public expressions take place as much in the context of entertainment and a broadcasting industry business model, as they do in the spheres of ‘politics’ and ‘news.’ As a result of this, and their rigid attitudes and thinking, I expect them to be selective in their research process and limited in how broad and deep of a context they provide in discussing current events. Although they frequently speak truths accurately, as many of us do, I do not expect them or any of their peers to be purely motivated by a desire to a) search for facts b) make proper interpretations; and c) draw accurate conclusions, that can be tested and verified by any reasonable and rational person.

However, for many, talk radio is often the first and only, if not most trusted source of news, information and analysis on current events and politics. I have several associates and acquaintances who have impressed me with how deferential they are to what they hear on such programs. It is as if they do no independent thinking outside of what they hear Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, Glen Beck, Michael Savage and Laura Ingram say. For liberal or progressive ideologues, perhaps the same is becoming true of their relationship with National Public Radio (NPR), and Air America talk show hosts.

I have been struck by this reality as it relates to the quality of the discussion, in not only talk radio, but all forms of media regarding Minister Louis Farrakhan’s statements. To me, the most noticeable factor missing from this conversation and debate - other than a serious effort to get the premise, motive and context of his actual remarks - is that of historical perspective.

Although Minister Farrakhan has mentioned historical information in all of the public statements he has given regarding his suggestion and hypothesis regarding the levee breach; I have not heard a single talk show host; Sunday morning news program; or newspaper article that has addressed the Minister’s view or that of other Blacks who share it - in part or full - deal with some of the historical information presented or alluded to by the Minister in any of his talks in question. Nor have they, of their own, presented a relevant historical context in which to weigh his remarks.

Minister Farrakhan’s teacher, The Honorable Elijah Muhammad, wrote, in part, beginning in the 1930s, "Of all our studies history is the most attractive and best qualified to reward our research, as it develops the springs and motives of human actions and displays the consequences of circumstances which operates most powerfully on the destinies of human beings." His statement has been repeated over the years by many of his students, perhaps most famously by Minister Malcolm X.

History takes us into the motivation of human beings and consequences of their thinking and action. It also provides perspective for events that take place in the present, allowing us to weigh events, things, institutions, persons, ideas, and scenarios in relation to one another, across space and time. It elevates our view of what we are currently looking at, above and beyond its "face" or most superficial aspects. With the light of history we can deepen and sharpen our perception of an actual reality, and its relationship to the law of cause and effect.

Although it is hard to estimate and verify such things, I am convinced that the most referenced book utilized by the media since Hurricane Katrina is the historical work, Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 And How It Changed America by John M. Barry. As a consequence, I also hold the opinion that, thus far, Mr. Barry is the media’s most respected opinion leader on the wide impact, implications and ramifications of floods that have hit the Gulf Coast region of the United States, over the last 100 years. He has been quoted extensively by journalists in mainstream and alternative media and has been interviewed by a wide range of talk show hosts – from Tim Russert, on the respected mainstream political talk show, "Meet The Press" to Matsimela Mapfumo and Dick Gregory on the popular Black talk radio show, "Make It Plain." Mr. Barry and his book, provide historical perspective for those who would wish to better understand Hurricane Katrina, and think through its real and potential impact.

Yet and still, as widely referred to as Mr. Barry and his book are by members of the media, I have not read in print or heard on radio, a single reference to a major, if not central theme of his book – the decision to intentionally destroy the levees in the Flood of 1927, in order to save one part of New Orleans at the expense of another. I find it hard to imagine it possible for anyone who has read this book to miss this prominent subject. And even for those who only skim, glance or glean, the book’s index even includes a section under the heading: "levees: the intentional destruction of." It then lists the following page numbers as dealing with that particular subject: 168, 222, 227, 229, 231-232, 234, 238- 258, 339, 408. Under the index heading of "Herbert Hoover" one finds a sub heading of "levee dynamiting and." The page numbers listed for this are 246, 252-253, 255, 340. (Even Minister Farrakhan makes an appearance in Rising Tide's index under, "Farrakhan, Louis, 128").

So why, in light of this subject’s prominence, in such a widely respected and referred to book, has it received so little attention in all forms of media? More specifically, why have those who have spoken so apparently freely on the subject of Minister Farrakhan’s comments, not mentioned the material in Rising Tide which describes not only the intentional destruction of levees, but also how the decision was made and who made it, in chronological order? Is it a mere oversight or accident that not one person in the media to the best of my knowledge has explored a relationship to what Minister Farrakhan is suggesting happened in 2005 with what is documented to have happened in the 1920s, in this book?

In my "E-Letter To Mike Dunne and The Advocate Re: "LSU Storm Expert Rejects Levee Failure Explanation", I wrote that there is a rational and reasonable basis for suspecting that there is more to the reality of what caused the levee(s) to break during or after Katrina, than what has been publicly offered by government and the mainstream media. I also mentioned that there were five salient points to that basis. The fourth of those points was the possibility of a historical precedent. To support that basis I quoted two brief excerpts of Rising Tide, pages 222 and 231 to be specific.

In order to provide more perspective related to that basis, here, below, are some more excerpts, with brief notes of introduction, related only to the planning phase of the intentional destruction of levees during the 1920s. (bold emphasis is mine.)

***

-*Note: In 1922 a flood hit New Orleans and intensified a decades-old debate among those who favored a policy of using levees only to protect the city from flooding, and those who believed that "spillways" – outlets that allow water from rivers to escape, in order to relieve water pressure on levees – should be built somewhere in the city. The leading advocate of "spillways" was James Kemper who was supported by a major New Orleans newspaper publisher, Jim Thomson, a man with high level Washington, D.C. connections. When a levee breach or crevasse took place in a place called Poydras, 12 miles below New Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish, although it caused widespread damage in that area, it resulted in a decrease in rising water levels in the river at New Orleans. The Poydras crevasse and its effect was used by "spillway" advocates as support for their approach. Those lobbying for spillways made their case at the local, state and federal level and received support as well as resistance. The discussion of "spillovers" evolved into one over whether or not it would be helpful to destroy levees that had already been built

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pgs. 167-168:

More than ever, Kemper was convinced New Orleans needed a spillway for emergencies. He believed the experience of the Poydras crevasse proved his case. He began to fight, hard, for his beliefs, and was joined by far more powerful allies.

Jim Thomson threw his weight behind Kemper. Long interested in the river, Thomson owned two New Orleans newspapers, the Morning Tribune and the afternoon Item. He was also well connected in Washington; he had worked in several presidential campaigns and, using family like a medieval potentate cementing alliances, became the son-in-law of the Speaker of the House and the brother-in-law of a senator, with a niece married to a senator. He contacted the presidents of every bank in the city, the Cotton Exchange, the Board of Trade, the Association of Commerce, and union leaders, then formed them all into the Safe River Committee of 100. Together their connections stretched from Washington to Wall Street.

For the next five years Thomson pushed Presidents Harding and Coolidge, the War Department, and the Congress to require the river commission to build a spillway.

General Beach, head of the Army engineers, responded by charging that New Orleans’ interests wanted a spillway only to save money. The city’s port infrastructure – docks, railroads, grain elevators, cotton warehouses, wharves – had been built to the old Mississippi River Commission standard. Raising it all to the new commission standard would cost millions o dollars, and the federal government would pay none of it. Beach also warned, "Some one has apparently started a propaganda, judging by the letters which are reaching this office...Indiscriminate accusations against adopted methods can only result in harm." When the criticism did not stop, he threatened the city, subtly intimating that he might advise "capitalists" to invest in competing ports like Mobile or Baton Rouge instead of New Orleans.

But his critics persisted. Finally, at a meeting on spillways in August 1922 in New Orleans, Beach told the businessmen present, "If it were my property, I would rather blow a hole in a levee, if conditions became serious, and let the water take care of itself, rather than [pay to] build it and pay $250,000 a year continually in interest charges [for bonds] and the additional cost of maintenance."

The chief of Army engineers was recommending that his audience blow up a levee and flood its neighbors. It seemed an astounding position for him to take. In taking it he was conceding that they were right, that a spillway would work.

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 222:

After the 1922 flood the chief of the Army Corps of Engineers had advised the New Orleans financial community that, if the river ever seriously threatened the city, they should blow a hole in the levee. In the years since, those words had never left the consciousness of either the people in St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes, who would be sacrificed, or those who dealt with the river in New Orleans

***

-*Note: On pg. 225 of Rising Tide, John Barry writes, "Three men determined what went into newspapers in the city." He describes how New Orleans-area and Louisiana media coverage was determined by three men, Robert Ewing, owner of the States and papers in Monroe and Shreveport; Esmond Phelps who controlled the board of The Times Picayune; and Jim Thomson, owner of The Morning Tribune and the Item. According to Mr. Barry, a Mr. Issac Cline, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau’s New Orleans office, who was watching the media’s coverage of the flood, became displeased with it. The local coverage of the flood, as he felt it ignored or understated its severity for some. In this next excerpt Mr. Barry describes Mr. Cline’s position and continues with more of the discussions regarding the intentional destruction of levees – an emergency meeting among the city’s establishment. Referred to in this excerpt are Rudolph Hecht, president of Hibernia Bank and Lonnie Pool, president of Marine Bank and Trust Company.

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 227

Cline was not worried about New Orleans itself. He agreed with Kemper that a great flood – and this already looked like a great flood – would break levees hundreds of miles upriver and relieve the city. But people in vulnerable areas read and relied on New Orleans papers; the lack of warning there would create a false sense of security. His angry protest was conveyed to Thomson, who relented somewhat, printing that afternoon, "Heavy Rains Raise River; Weather Bureau Advises of Rising Stages…The bureau urged ‘all persons interested to take necessary precautions against still higher stages during the next two weeks.’"

The story did not satisfy Cline. Late that afternoon he met with business leaders to demand honesty in future stories. They assured him of it. They were lying. Nor did they tell him that Thomson had already called an emergency meeting about the river. Butler had been out of the city and had sent Canal Bank Vice President Dan Curran, a close friend of LeRoy Percy, as his representative. Hecht and Pool had attended. In that meeting, for the first time, Thomson had talked seriously about dynamiting the levee. If the situation worsened, he said, he would travel to Washington and see the president himself.

No one had protested against the enormity of the act Thomson was suggesting. It was illegal, and it would destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people. Nor had anyone questioned the authority, right, or ability of those in the meeting to perform this illegal act. Nor, although they had been discussing the most public business, business that involved federal, state, city, and parish governments, had anyone protested the fact that no public official had been present.

After the meeting, Thomson had informed levee board president Guy Deano, who in turn privately advised Klorer, the city councilman and river engineer, "The Emergency Committee had conferences...and plans have been worked out by them."

***

-*Note: A second emergency meeting was held to discuss the intentional destruction of levees in New Orleans. Referred to in this excerpt is James Pierce Butler, head of the Canal Bank, the largest bank in the South with intimate ties to Chase in New York. Also referred to is the Board of Liquidation, which was created in 1880 by New Orleans bankers to handle the debt left over from Reconstruction. It had enormous powers including handling all of the money New Orleans collected in taxes and authority over the city’s issuance of bonds.

Excerpt from Rising Tide's picture section. Under a picture of Mr. James Pierce Butler, Jr. appears the following caption:

"...Butler was president of the South's largest bank and of the elite Boston Club. He manipulated the state and federal governments into dynamiting the levee outside New Orleans - flooding out thousands of people - to relieve pressure on the city."

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 228

With the torrents were still falling, Marcel Garsaud, a former Army colonel and levee engineer who was now manager of the Dock Board, called Hecht, the board president, and said they needed to discuss the river situation immediately. Hecht also asked Butler, Pool, who that year headed the New Orleans Clearing House Association, several other bank presidents, and General Allison Owen, president of the Association of Commerce to come to an emergency meeting.

Thomson was not invited. Possibly Hecht kept him out because he was not a member of the inner sanctum. Possibly Garsaud objected because of Garsaud’s bitter feeling toward Kemper, whom Thomson might have brought. Garsaud was prickly, bristled at any offense, and although the two engineers agreed on policy Kemper had recently rebuked him for his mistaken calculations on the industrial canal, and for playing "politics" and creating discord, writing, "I have been in this game, Colonel, much longer than you have. For a long time I fought a lone fight...You have set us back several years."

Those who did belong to the inner sanctum gathered in Hecht’s office at the Hibernia Bank. Outside, the rain lashed the windows; the wind shook them. Hecht, a cigar aficionado, lit one. So did several others. The smoke filled the room. The windows were opaque with condensation, isolating them from the world outside.

Garsaud announced that he had just talked to Cline. The rain could continue for hours. "If the levees up river hold, the Mississippi could reach a stage of 24.5 feet here," Garsaud said. "In my opinion a stage above 24 feet could well cause a crevasse." Then Garsaud suggested that they could eliminate any doubt about the safety of New Orleans by dynamiting the levee elsewhere, if the men present deemed it wise.

Everyone present knew that Thomson had already begun planning for this eventuality, but it was not his decision. It was theirs. They were bankers, mostly. Bankers had a history of taking charge in city crises. During the 1905 yellow fever epidemic, the U.S. Surgeon General refused to help the city without a guarantee of $250,000. The mayor had lacked the authority to make any such commitment. Charles Javier, then president of the Canal Bank, a member of the Board of Liquidation, and chairman of the state Democratic Party’s Central Committee, had made two telephone calls, then gave the guarantee, and federal resources had poured into the city to fight the outbreak.

Now all of the bankers present had received wires from correspondent banks in New York and elsewhere, inquiring about the city’s safety. Implicit in the inquiry was the question of investment risk, a life-and-death question to them.

Butler had replaced Janvier at both the bank and the Board of Liquidation. Nothing could be done if he opposed it. Butler was the key.

Excerpt From Rising Tide, pg. 231

Butler turned to the men in the room and said they needed information on several issues, some legal, some technical. Addressing Garsaud, he said, "You say "if the levees above us hold." There is little chance of that, is there?"

"They will probably not hold," Garsaud conceded. "But the pressure will be intense here in any event. It is possible that water could flow out through any levee breaks and return to the river."

Hecht raised another point. Even if no river water entered New Orleans, the flood could destroy the city financially. People were building boats, tying them to their porches, stocking groceries. To liquidate inventories, wholesale suppliers were cutting prices in half and begging customers around the country to buy. Daily, hundreds of thousands of dollars were being withdrawn from banks. If the fear grew great enough, if a run developed on a bank, it would hurt, and perhaps even destroy, weaker banks. Short-term credit was disappearing, period. Long term, if the nation’s businessmen lost confidence in the safety of New Orleans, serious damage could result. Rival ports were hungry. The Illinois Central recently had – for the first time – shipped a load of molasses from Gulfport, Mississippi. U.S. Steel was planning to ship exports out of Mobile, Alabama.

Pool’s bank was the most vulnerable in the city; he had aggressively loaned money to sugar planters. A crevasse on the river’s west bank could destroy them, and his bank. Dynamiting the levee on the east bank might also relieve them. Pool argued: "The people of the New Orleans are in such a panic that all who can do so are leaving the city. Thousands are leaving daily. Only dynamite will restore confidence."

Butler knew the power of the river. As a boy, he had watched his father cut a canal from St. Catherine’s Creek on their property to the Mississippi. It had been a mistake. The creek quickly grew into a powerful river itself and scoured out acres of their plantation. The creek had awed him, and the Mississippi had seemed like God. He knew what floods were.

Now they were discussing purposefully loosing the Mississippi River on their neighbors. It was a horrible thing, a thing that ran against everything he had been raised to believe. How real was the threat to New Orleans? The threat to its business was real enough, but how real was the threat of the river? Or did it matter?

"I believe," Butler said coolly, not explicitly deciding but allowing momentum to gather more force, "the appropriate step at this point is to involve the authorities."

***

Eventually the decision to explode the levee was made and actually executed. It involved the highest levels of government and commerce. According to Mr. Barry, it was an unnecessary act and one that had tremendous negative consequences - some less obvious than others. The book, Rising Tide contains this story in great detail, as the above excerpts should indicate. The actual explosion is described in Chapter Twenty. The destructive process took place for ten consecutive days, using 39 tons of dynamite. It destroyed the St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parishes.

Why isn’t that story being told today, in light of a supposed interest, expressed by many in media, to understand why so many Black former residents of New Orleans believe that levees were intentionally exploded - that certain parts of the city may be saved at the expense of other parts?

Shouldn’t the account of levees dynamited in New Orleans in 1927, contained in a popular book - arguably the most respected in the media since Katrina - be included in any discussion of Minister Farrakhan’s belief that a levee might have been blown up, in 2005, to save some portions of the city, at the expense of others?

What Minister Farrakhan has presented - that levees were intentionally exploded so that certain parts of the city may be saved at the expense of other parts - has been mocked as a ‘conspiracy theory’ by many. None of those that I have heard making a caricature out of the Minister and his suggestion - using the "straw man" argument technique - do so with any reference to history, not to mention the history of levees in New Orleans or the Gulf Coast. And none of them use Rising Tide to refute what he has put forth.

Regardless to what the term ‘conspiracy theory’ has come to mean in today’s lexicon and colloquial expression, what is described in Rising Tide, as it relates to the deliberate dynamiting of levees, clearly reads like a widening conspiracy. It would not be difficult to prove this, I don’t think. If that is the case, then those who mock and ridicule Blacks for considering the possibility that the levee breach near the Ninth Ward was deliberately created, do so without perspective, or while concealing or omitting it.

There are a lot of factors involved in an individual or community accepting as possible or probable, the suggestion that Minister Farrakhan has put forth. Not the least among these factors is historical precedent.

Perhaps that is why "no one" is talking about a major aspect of the book, "Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood Of 1927 And How It Changed America."

Maybe it provides too much perspective, in a climate that has too little.

Cedric Muhammad

Monday, October 03, 2005