German minister blames global warming and US policy for katrina, shows no compassion

German minister blames global warming and US policy for katrina, shows no compassion

On Tuesday, the german minister for environment, Jürgen Trittin,
said in a morning tv-show, that the responsibility for katrina lies in the hands of GW Bush, his administration and the policy on global warming, as he believes (sais that "there could be no other reason") that global warming caused the hurricane to be so strong.

I do not want to discuss if, how and why global warming could rise the intensity or frequency of hurricanes here.

What bothers me, is, that this person did not show any compassion or say a single word of regret for what happened and happens in the desaster area!
When I heard him talk, I thought "wow, this man must be insane, completely insane, to talk about THAT in THIS moment of pure desaster, where people need help instead of moral speeches".

As a german, I would like to express my sincere regret for what this person said.
Also, I would like to say how much I feel with those facing the desaster, be it as victims or relatives, friends and neighbours of victims or soldiers, policemen, firemen and other desaster relief personal.
I wish I could help you in a personal way.

Americans have responded to the words of Mr. Trittin: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,372434,00.html

Shame on our government, why hasn't anybody fired this man already? Probably because we are just inmid all the campaigning for our federal elections.

Politicians.

Its worse than that. He is really really awful. And this I say not because of his political opinions which I do not share, this I say because of his behaviour whenever he has to show that he has a heart. He seems not to have one.

Who cares about what a Environmental Minister has to say? A minister who's most likely no more minister in three weeks as all polls are constantly showing that his party won't be re-elected in the elections in actually not even three weeks.

The Bush Administration does have an appalling enviromental policy, but he can hardly be blamed for the storm

Well.... so people are different - its the other gouverning party that has lost all my trust in them, so my voting in ~2 weeks will for the first time do not include them anymore... guess which party it is who now has my full support And IMO he has addressed the situation in a way wich was overdue to be said, and yes he may have lacked some empathic abillity by doing so.

BUT I have no transcript about his exact words (neither the article by him in the Frankfurter Rundschau, nor his appearance on air) and under wich context(!) they where said! At least on the corresponding articles from n-tv and deutschlandradio it sounds pretty neutral, and not that he blames Bush for the event, but the avoidance of the US over the last years to address the problem.... And as a Geo-Scientist it is a Topic that I have an interest in - but you said that this thread shouldn't be the place about it, so I respect that

Well, I haven't seen the exact text either, but then it could be that he showed as much sympathy for the dead and injured Americans as Bush et al show for the Afghanistanis and Iraqis that have been killed and injured by America's bombs!

Hurricanes you can't do much about, but bombs you can.

The simple problem was that he DID not say a word of regret or compassion. Not a single word. He is a politician, he knows the typical phrase for such cases: "Let me first express [...] before I answer your question."

Yes, that was a little rude, to say the least. Yet my point still stands. How many politicians in the entire West have shown any real compassion for the innocents killed in the Bush Oil Wars? There may be some, but they haven't made it into the news as far as I've seen.

OK, I guess I have to put my two cents in too. I've read some stuff in the paper and heard on the radio from a number of people RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA who are sure it's all Bush'es fault, global warming and the whole bit. They seem more interested in seeing to it that Bush gets the blame than they are in helping people/ solving the problems.

For the record, there is nothing any politician could have done-- short of evacuating the affected areas ahead of the hurricane's arrival-- that could have changed the outcome. Hurricanes are unpredictable enough that even an evacuation would be chancy at best. No edict issued by any politician could have stopped the Sun from warming the Tropical ocean waters, which is what really gives a hurricane its strength in the first place. Katrina would have happened even if Bush had signed Kyoto on the day he took office in 2001, and it still would have hit the gulf coast with all of the ferocity it had when it hit as a category 4 hurricane (it had weakened some from cat. 5 overnight).

Hurricanes have been going through the region for a lot longer than Man has been here. I seem to remember reading that a hurricane sunk one of Columbus's ships, and I am certain that later, a hurricane was responsible for the wreck of the treasure ship "Atocha" both events happening long before any "Industrial Age" global warming could have caused them. Take a REALLY GOOD look at the history of the region, and you'll see that hurricanes-- even really bad ones sometimes-- have been happening-- and paying no attention to politicians-- for a long time.

Now, let's quit trying to affix blame and let's try to help those people. There's a lot of work to pick up the pieces and fix what the hurricane broke.

Yup, the critics in the US say its not the enviromental policy, but the budgetary one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102261.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

OMB vs. Army Corps of Engineers
Critics Say Bush Undercut New Orleans Flood Control

By Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 2, 2005; Page A16

President Bush repeatedly requested less money for programs to guard against catastrophic storms in New Orleans than many federal and state officials requested, decisions that are triggering a partisan debate over administration priorities at a time when the budget is strained by the Iraq war.

Even with full funding in recent years, none of the flood-control projects would have been completed in time to prevent the swamping of the city, as Democrats yesterday acknowledged. But they said Bush's decision to hold down spending on fortifying levees around New Orleans reflected a broader shuffling of resources -- to pay for tax cuts and the Iraq invasion -- that has left the United States more vulnerable.

The complaints showed how the Hurricane Katrina disaster is prompting the same recriminations that surround nearly all subjects in the capital's current angry mood. The reaction was in contrast to the response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when for a season partisan politics was largely suspended and Bush had the backing of the opposition party.

A main point of controversy hinges on what until now were obscure decisions in the annual budget process, marked by routine tensions between agencies and local congressional delegations on one side and White House budget officials on the other.

In recent years, Bush repeatedly sought to slice the Army Corps of Engineers' funding requests to improve the levees holding back Lake Pontchartrain, which Katrina smashed through, flooding New Orleans. In 2005, Bush asked for $3.9 million, a small fraction of the request the corps made in internal administration deliberations. Under pressure from Congress, Bush ultimately agreed to spend $5.7 million. Since coming to office, Bush has essentially frozen spending on the Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for protecting the coastlines, waterways and other areas susceptible to natural disaster, at around $4.7 billion.

As recently as July, the White House lobbied unsuccessfully against a plan to spend $1 billion over four years to rebuild coastlines and wetlands, which serve as buffers against hurricanes. More than half of that money goes to Louisiana.

At the same time, the president has reorganized government to prepare for possible terrorist attacks, folding emergency-response agencies such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency into the Department of Homeland Security. Bush said government functions needed to be streamlined to allow for better communications among agencies and speedier responses to terrorist attacks and other crises.

"Flood control has been a priority of this administration from Day One," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan, adding that the administration in recent years has dedicated a total of $300 million for flood control in the New Orleans area. Beyond that, he dismissed questions about specific projects as mere partisan sniping. "This is not a time for finger-pointing or playing politics," McClellan said.

The Corps of Engineers, which worked closely with White House officials on its response, went to the defense of the administration, denying that additional money would have made a difference this week because the defenses of New Orleans were designed to withstand a Category 3 storm, not a Category 4 hurricane such as Katrina. "It was not a funding issue," said Carol Sanders, the chief spokeswoman for the corps. "It's an issue of the design capabilities of these projects."

But a growing number of Democrats are pointing to stalled relief efforts, substandard flood protection systems and the slow pace of getting military personnel to the hardest-hit areas as evidence of a distracted government.

"It is hard to say, but it is true: There was a failure by [Bush] to meet the responsibility here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). "Somebody needs to say it."

Is the National Guard "depleted because so many Guard are in Iraq that we don't have the opportunity to activate civil control?" asked Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). "That question has to be asked." Almost one in three National Guardsmen in Louisiana is serving in Iraq or war-related efforts, according to the National Guard.

Michael Parker, who was forced by Bush to resign as assistant secretary of the Army for civil works after accusing the White House of shortchanging the Corps of Engineers, said the culprit is not the president but government-wide resistance to investing long-term in projects such as flood control.

"You have watched during a period of 72 hours a modern city of New Orleans [become] a Third World country, and it is all because of the disintegration of infrastructure," Parker said. "Everybody is to blame -- it transcends administrations. It transcends party."

Parker, a former Republican congressman from Mississippi, said the biggest institutional obstacle to protecting levees and bridges and waterways is the Office of Management and Budget, which has sought to rein in the Corps of Engineers' budget under Bush and predecessors. Critics say the corps sometimes works with lawmakers to secure congressional spending authority on wasteful programs.

Local and federal officials have long warned that funding shortages in the New Orleans area would have consequences. They sounded the alarm as recently as last summer when they complained that federal budget cuts had stopped major work on New Orleans east bank hurricane levees for the first time in 37 years. Al Naomi, the senior project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers, reported at the time that he was getting only half as much money as he needed and that much of the funding was being used to pay contractors for past work.

"When levees are below grade, as ours are in many spots right now, they're more vulnerable to waves pouring over them and degrading them," Naomi told the Times-Picayune of New Orleans. Walter Maestri, the emergency management chief in Jefferson Parish (county), at the time linked the funding shortfall to the cost of the Iraq war. "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," he told the newspaper. Maestri added, "For us, this levee is part and parcel of homeland security because it helps protect us 365 days a year."

One project that has drawn attention in recent days is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, commonly called SELA, which began a decade ago to improve flood protection in a network of improved drainage canals and pump stations in Orleans and Jefferson parishes.

The project, which is supposed to cost $744 million overall, has been shortchanged recently, according to advocates. The corps said it needed $62.5 million next fiscal year; Bush proposed $10.5 million.

This provoked howls of protest from the Louisiana congressional delegation. "All of us said, 'Look, build it or you're going to have all of Jefferson Parish under water,' " recalled former senator John Breaux, a Democrat who is a Bush ally. "And they didn't, and now all of Jefferson Parish is under water."

----

But who's to say that even if the projects got all the funding they requested, would that have really stopped this from happening?

What I'd like to know is why an idiot gets quoted just because they happen to hold an office of some type. It doesn't change the fact that they are still a jerk and an ignorant, calloused and empty hearted individual. Well, on second thought maybe they will at least get run out of town when people learn what lurks in their psyche. I would at least hope this to be the case. I just get tired of seeing "pubic figures" being allotted time to do basically nothing more than spout off a tirade of uninformed and egocentric babble.

Here is a followup:

German Minister Says Americans Misunderstood Him

Germany's Environmental Minister, Jürgen Trittin of the Green Party, has been sharply criticized in the catastrophe-stricken United States over a commentary he wrote earlier this week attacking Washington's climate change policies. In a press release on Friday, Trittin talks. You can read his press office's statement here, along with SPIEGEL ONLINE's response.

"Trittin rejects deliberate misinterpretations of his comments"

A guest commentary by General Minister of the Environment Jürgen Trittin in the Frankfurter Rundschau last Tuesday (8/30/2005) is still producing heated discussions and accusations against Trittin days later. Michael Schroeren, the spokesman of the Ministry of the Environment, has issued the following statement on this issue:

1. The Federal Minister of the Environment followed the news of Hurricane Katrina with great concern after it slammed into the southern coast of the United States. He is filled with dismay about the aftermath of the hurricane, which, in the last three days, has developed into a devastating catastrophe that has exceeded everything imaginable and conceivable, a catastrophe whose scope is still not fully foreseeable. Hundreds are already confirmed dead - and the death toll may well extend into the thousands - and the physical damage is immense. The Minister of the Environment feels deep sympathy for those affected by this catastrophe, the families of the victims and the entire American people. Given the fact that the dimensions of this catastrophe are only gradually coming to light, our most important concern should be to offer assistance and support, wherever possible and as quickly as possible.

2. Given these circumstances, it is more than regrettable that the Minister's article was not only misunderstood by some, but was also specifically and deliberately misinterpreted. The article in the Frankfurter Rundschau was written last Monday and appeared on the next day, Tuesday - in other words, at a time when the scope of the catastrophe was not even remotely apparent and New Orleans had not yet been flooded. On the contrary, reports from the United States were still conveying the impression that the consequences of the hurricane were less severe than initially feared. Incidentally, most commentators in German newspapers writing about this topic on Tuesday had also based their comments on this same assessment. The Federal Minister of the Environment emphatically rejects the malicious insinuation that he is not concerned about or has exploited the fate of the flood victims.

3. It is and remains a fact that climate change increases the likelihood of the development of storms and floods in North America and Europe. It is a fact that human beings are contributing significantly to climate change with emissions of greenhouse gases. For this reason, radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- worldwide -- are an absolute necessity. This conclusion is the core message of the article, which also suggests reaching out to America with a detailed proposal for the future of international climate protection.

SPIEGEL ONLINE'S EDITORS RESPOND:

In his letter, Trittin rejects what he calls "malicious insinuation" that he didn't care about the fate of the flood victims or that he had tried to exploit their fates. But on Wednesday, his office did little to dispel this image in remarks made to SPIEGEL ONLINE. His spokesman Michael Schroeren said that he "can't understand ... at all" why Americans are upset. Trittin's comments "are true and he wrote what he meant." In the United States, Trittin was sharply criticized because his commentary in the Frankfurter Rundschau didn't include a single word of condolence to the hurricane's victims. Trittin pointed out the fact that he wrote the essay before the dimension of the hurricane's damage was known, but that argument will convince few. After all, it was already clear on Monday, that with "Katrina" moving at high speeds towards the Gulf Coast, it still had the potential to leave many dead in its wake -- even if the catastrophic dimensions didn't seem as great as they would later.

On Thursday, SPIEGEL ONLINE requested an interview with Mr. Trittin that would appear on both its German and English-language Web sites. The request went unanswered and Mr. Trittin remained silent about the flood victims.

Emphasis added.
So his fault is that he didn't offer preemptive condolence it seems.

And here is another related article:

German Environmental Minister Jürgen Trittin remains stolid in his assertion that Hurricane Katrina is linked to global warming and America's refusal to reduce emissions. He may be right, but the timing of his tirade is way off.

Germany's Minister of the Environment, Jürgen Trittin of the Green Party, on Tuesday unleashed a firestorm of criticism in the United States over comments he made in a newspaper column directly linking the natural catastrophe in the American South to global warming. After Hurricane Katrina bashed America's Gulf States and left New Orleans a sunken wasteland, Trittin wrote an editorial lashing out at US President George W. Bush for "closing his eyes" to the dangers of global warming. The polemic began with the line, "Recently in the theaters, now in real life," and went on to compare the scenes of Hurricane Katrina to Roland Emmerich's Hollywood blockbuster "The Day after Tomorrow."

He also said that if something is not done soon -- in other words if Bush maintains his current stance on global warming and continues to reject the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions -- America and Europe can expect even more storms like Katrina in the future. American readers reacted with a vengeance and their angry words filled our in-box Wednesday here at SPIEGEL ONLINE. Essentially, they were outraged that in the middle of a crisis, a German minister would turn to America and -- instead of reaching out a helping hand -- virtually point a finger and say, "You asked for this."

Yet, despite the uproar he has caused, Trittin remains unrepentant. On Wednesday, his spokesman Michael Schroeren even said that he "can't understand ... at all" why Americans are upset. Trittin's comments "are true and he wrote what he meant."

Carsten Voigt, who coordinates German-American relations for the German Foreign Ministry, attempted to smooth over any hard feelings on Wednesday, by stressing Germany's concern for America's Gulf Coast states and suggesting that Trittin's comments -- albeit accurate -- were badly timed and somewhat misplaced, given the scale of the catastrophe.

"I agree with what he said, but of course, the way it was said is another matter," said Voigt. "The main point though is that climate change is an issue that needs to be put on the table. ... I think that at this point, given the circumstances, one should be a bit more diplomatic than Mr. Trittin was, but there is general consensus in Germany that climate change is a major issue. It has nothing to do with who is in power (German Chancellor Gerhard) Schröder or Bush. It is not about Kyoto. The most important thing is that we do something."

He also said that though he does not see Bush or American policy as to blame for Katrina, he does believe that the hurricane "was stronger because of climate change." Global warming, he said, is a "long-term question" but it is "certainly true that when a land is so highly developed as the US, it has a responsibility to work against climate change. When the US has a better plan (than Kyoto or anything else currently being suggested), then please," we'd like to hear it, he said.

Voigt also took pains to stress Germany's willingness to help America and American victims in any way possible. Indeed, Interior Minister Otto Schily offered up as much aid as America needs. An upper-level government spokesperson told SPIEGEL ONLINE that, "the Foreign Ministry is in constant contact with its American partner agencies" and is following the aftermath of Katrina "with concern." The bottom line though is that America -- which has one of the most sophisticated rescue operations in the world -- almost certainly won't be asking for assistance.

"We only send things when our help helps," Voigt said. "Right now, this is not about money. It is about solidarity with our American partners. And we certainly feel that."

Some people just don't know when to stand down.
It's gotta take a lot of energy to remain that lofty all the time.