Storm warning: The impact of hurricanes is on the rise

Two new books, “A Furious Sky” and “Katrina,” offer insights into these storms and the challenges that they pose for planning and mitigation efforts.

Courtesy of Harvard University Press and W. W. Norton & Company
“Katrina: A History, 1915–2015” by Andy Horowitz, Harvard University Press, 296 pp.; and “A Furious Sky: The Five-Hundred-Year History of America's Hurricanes” by Eric Jay Dolin, Liveright, 432 pp.

For the first time since such records have been kept, 2020’s Atlantic hurricane season has seen nine tropical storms before Aug. 1. The month of July alone saw Cristobal, Edouard, Fay, Gonzalo, Hanna, and finally Isaias, all of which were the earliest named storms, with Isaias strengthening to full hurricane force that threatened as far north as New England.

Two new books, Eric Jay Dolin’s “A Furious Sky: The Five-Hundred-Year History of America’s Hurricanes,” and Andy Horowitz’s “Katrina: A History, 1915-2015” offer insights into the powerful effects of these weather systems.

Dolin (read the Monitor’s Q&A with him here) explains that hurricanes have left an indelible mark on American history. In the book’s epigraph, he quotes a letter written by a teenage Alexander Hamilton, describing a hurricane that struck his home on St. Croix in the Caribbean in 1772: “The roaring of the sea and wind, fiery meteors flying about it in the air, the prodigious glare of almost perpetual lightning, the crash of the falling houses ... were sufficient to strike astonishment into angels.”

That tone of astonishment runs throughout Dolin’s thoroughly engrossing book. He’s combed historical archives, searching for the hurricanes that were severe enough to commandeer the narrative, however briefly. One such storm, for example, struck Massachusetts in 1635, flattening trees and houses and prompting then-Gov. William Bradford to comment that “none living in these parts, either English or Indians, ever saw” the like of it.

Lessons from Katrina

Hurricane Katrina hammered New Orleans in late August 2005, taking more than 1,800 lives and causing more than $160 billion in damages. Horowitz, a history professor at Tulane University, has written easily the best book on the subject since Douglas Brinkley’s 2006 “The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast.” Beyond delving into the tangled history of Louisiana politics, Horowitz’s book thoughtfully attempts to understand the cultural nature of these calamities. “Disasters are less discrete events than they are contingent processes,” he writes. “Seemingly acute incidents, like the largely forgotten 1915 hurricane, live on as the lessons they teach, the decisions they prompt, and the accommodations they oblige.”

His book takes an intriguing look at the social dynamics that so often play out in natural disasters, noting that the “environmental precarity, economic inequality, racial enmity, political division, bureaucratic ineptitude, social trauma, and resistance to all of these things that defined much of the Katrina disaster might have happened anywhere in the United States.” But the fact that Katrina’s impact fell disproportionately on poor Louisianans raises a host of issues that Horowitz addresses better than any previous narrative history of the catastrophe. 

Both authors stress the importance of preparedness. They also question the practice, over the years, of allowing homes to be rebuilt in more or less the same locations where storms had only recently destroyed them. The kind of long-term planning that accounts for climate change and rising sea levels has been conspicuously absent.

Each book points to the increasingly sophisticated technology that enables more accurate predictions of not only the onset but also the path of monster storms as a reason for some hope. But it would be better still if those storms encountered only tough levee systems when they came ashore, instead of row upon row of houses built right down to the water.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.