|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The last thing you need in a crisis is a right wing government
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The present UK government has shrunk the Environment Agency and cut its staff year on year. Local authority budgets have been slashed and the military too. So – now that it needs the help of these self same agencies the government is surprised that they are facing difficulties. Cool sounding committee meetings called 'COBRA' are useless talking shops designed to appease imo. No practical use whatsoever.
George W Bush did the same – shrunk the resources available then when hurricane Katrina struck was found totally unprepared.
What do you think should be done about Britain’s floods?
Do you think more staff/resources/money should be put into bodies like the Environment Agency and local authorities?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
The thing I cant understand is why no one gives these politicians a good slapping when they visit the flood areas .... it's not as if any court or jury in the land would convict you.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
I am certain that when the various politicians visited the Somerset Levels floods, there were some very loud and pertinent questions asked. Only we never heard or saw them, they being edited out by the BBC. If anyone saw or heard other TV channels, then they might have heard stronger language. I don't know.
I have a cynical nature!
As to how to help - the long term strategy should be to start at the top. Many hills have been denuded of vegetation except short grasses etc. and so do not soak up the rainwater. Planting trees would help enormously, but then the sheep would have to go - and you've got farmers depending on hill farming out there. Plus the peat bogs, covered with sphagnum mosses have been stripped for both peat and moss, and so do not soak up the rainwater. The used to act as giant sponges, but now the water just goes down to lower levels.
And don't get me started on building houses on flood plains........
Sea flooding is being tackled, rightly and bravely, by allowing the sea to come inland as it wants, and letter the low lying land on the coasts and in estuaries take up the tidal surges. Which is what happened years ago, before land was reclaimed again and again, driving the sea further out, and magnifying its power as it comes in.
If you see what I mean. I can't explain it more scientifically than that!
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Boogie, we must be efficient! Just in time ordering, utilisation as near to 100% as possible. We can't have things, or people, sitting around just in case we need them any more. That would be a waste of money. The private sector will bail us out using the laws of the free market economy. We should out-source and arrange our own private insurance.
Now don't go upsetting business by legislating or expecting it to pay for measures to prevent the effects of climate change. They might not want to pay their taxes of contribute to the next election campaign. If is far more important to attract them in with tax beaks and a deregulated labour market.
If all else fails, we can always fall back on the Big Society. Or workfare. It is far cheaper to get this kind of environmental work done by forced labour by the way.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I don't feel competent to judge the government's response to the economic crisis, and I'm inclined to be highly suspicious of anyone who thinks they are. The left : right, spend : austerity alternatives seem to me to be more about rhetoric than actions. However, the right wing claims to be cutting and spending less, they trim fringe expenditure - perhaps for symbolic reasons - and people believe them.
So we have a national narrative about austerity, being poorer and more at risk, about having to tough out these grim, grey days, and perhaps being punished for those wonderfully easy and luxurious times that it appears we had not so long ago. We did, didn't we?
It is supported beautifully by the meteorology of this winter: cold winds and lashing rain rushing in from the ocean, the Somerset levels disappearing under water, and the good old Victorian stonework of the railway near Dawlish actually being nibbled away by the sea. A few clods are lost from the maine and we are all diminished.
So everyone panics and wails, like scared infants. The Somerset levels do flood. They were always largely under water until the monks at Glastonbury started draining them, then Dutch engineers in the 17th Century. Floods in 1919 were four times as extensive as this year's. Just 40 homes have actually been flooded according to this BBC page. The farms under water are mostly land that is used for grazing, not for growing crops. It isn't the end of the world.
But if everyone feels we've been bad in the past, paying ourselves too much, and now we're being punished for it, then it does feel like the end of the world - well, a taste of it. Lets all cry and get angry with our leaders for not fixing it.
There could be a narrative about communities pulling together to help those suffering from bad weather. There could even be some pleasure to be found in the fact that in these days of excessive human control, nature is still much bigger than we are, and our 'management' of it is an uncertain thing where we still have to take a few steps back sometimes. Part of the appeal of living on the levels, surrounded by reeds and rhynes and wildlife, and the many rivers and drains, yards apart, that you cross on the M5, is that you are there under licence from nature. The spring tides are higher than your doorstep and you may have to pack quickly once in a generation or so.
But that would be quite a grown up attitude.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
There could be a narrative about communities pulling together to help those suffering from bad weather. There could even be some pleasure to be found in the fact that in these days of excessive human control, nature is still much bigger than we are, and our 'management' of it is an uncertain thing where we still have to take a few steps back sometimes. Part of the appeal of living on the levels, surrounded by reeds and rhynes and wildlife, and the many rivers and drains, yards apart, that you cross on the M5, is that you are there under licence from nature. The spring tides are higher than your doorstep and you may have to pack quickly once in a generation or so.
But that would be quite a grown up attitude.
I couldn't agree more.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Not to mention carte blanche given to developers who build housing estates on flood plains.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
We could work out what the maximum sea level is likely to be over the next three hundred years, and start gradually moving things out of the way, inland and higher up. And we could start shifting our agricultural effort towards crops and life stock more suited to the changing climate. I think the HS2 budget would be better spent doing this.
One thing is clear I think, whilst dredging the rivers might have been a short term solution for some seasonal flooding it would have made fuck all difference to this.
Planned change would be so much easier on people than scrabbling about after a natural disaster. And we wouldn't have to do wasteful things like repair the victorian costal line - which will clearly have to shut in the near future. Because we'd have opened and refurbished am old Beeching line inland.i
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dv
Shipmate
# 15714
|
Posted
I think the OP will also find that the previous Labour government also cut practical measures at the Environment Agency (while ISTM wasting money on ineffective green propaganda instead). Labour loathed the countryside and the people who live there.
It is also worth noting that the current head of the Environment Agency is none other than Lord Smith - former Labour MP and all-round metropolitan Islington luvvie. Must've been picked for his great expertise....
Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The problem is, TINA. Since the 50s, there has been a shift to the right in UK politics, so that basically we now have 3 centre-right parties, wedded to the market economy, deregulation, low wages, and so on.
There appears to be no alternative now, so although there are periodic embarrassing episodes for governments, such as the floods debacle, I don't think it will affect the political landscape very much.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
dv
Shipmate
# 15714
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The problem is, TINA. Since the 50s, there has been a shift to the right in UK politics, so that basically we now have 3 centre-right parties, wedded to the market economy, deregulation, low wages, and so on.
There appears to be no alternative now, so although there are periodic embarrassing episodes for governments, such as the floods debacle, I don't think it will affect the political landscape very much.
Depends on your perspective. My take is that we've three essentially centre-left parties with a metropolitan agenda. Sadly.
Posts: 70 | From: Lancs UK | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The problem is, TINA. Since the 50s, there has been a shift to the right in UK politics, so that basically we now have 3 centre-right parties, wedded to the market economy, deregulation, low wages, and so on.
There appears to be no alternative now, so although there are periodic embarrassing episodes for governments, such as the floods debacle, I don't think it will affect the political landscape very much.
Yes - I agree. We have not had a choice for years. All three parties are from the same mould, unfortunately.
I will never forget the hope I had in 1997 - only to be dashed by more-of-the-same of Thatcher's nonsense.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I am certain that when the various politicians visited the Somerset Levels floods, there were some very loud and pertinent questions asked. Only we never heard or saw them, they being edited out by the BBC. If anyone saw or heard other TV channels, then they might have heard stronger language. I don't know.
I have a cynical nature!
It seems that Lord Smith has gone out of his way to avoid the press. They caught up with him in the end, though.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dv:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The problem is, TINA. Since the 50s, there has been a shift to the right in UK politics, so that basically we now have 3 centre-right parties, wedded to the market economy, deregulation, low wages, and so on.
Depends on your perspective. My take is that we've three essentially centre-left parties with a metropolitan agenda. Sadly.
You can't be serious. "Centre-left" is incompatible with being "wedded to the market economy, deregulation, low wages, and so on." Metropolitan agenda, yes: but in the sense that London is the centre of the market economy.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I resent the way pundits all seem to accept the argument 'the Environment Agency has to choose what to spend money on according to parameters'. It ignores the simple fact that the EA gets its money from the government - which means that government rather than the EA is responsible for how much it has to spend.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
We could work out what the maximum sea level is likely to be over the next three hundred years, and start gradually moving things out of the way, inland and higher up. And we could start shifting our agricultural effort towards crops and life stock more suited to the changing climate. I think the HS2 budget would be better spent doing this.
One thing is clear I think, whilst dredging the rivers might have been a short term solution for some seasonal flooding it would have made fuck all difference to this.
Planned change would be so much easier on people than scrabbling about after a natural disaster. And we wouldn't have to do wasteful things like repair the victorian costal line - which will clearly have to shut in the near future. Because we'd have opened and refurbished am old Beeching line inland.i
It seems I am not alone.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Oh, I dunno. The Conservatives are once again demonstrating their consummate skill at selecting the appropriate human shield in a crisis. When we had flooding under the last government, Gordon Brown came in for all the flak - as if all he had to do was rebuke the waters and they would subside to their normal levels. This time the Environment Agency has taken most of the heat, and quite a lot of people seem to be unaware of the link between the size of its budget (controlled by central government) and the number of things it can do to help...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Oh, and dv: quote:
Labour loathed the countryside and the people who live there.
I looked at the party manifestos before the last election and the only difference between their rural policies was the Conservatives' pledge to have a free vote on whether or not to lift the hunting ban.
ALL the mainstream parties care more about urban areas than rural ones. That's where most of the voters are nowadays.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I did post a blog about this today.
The thing is, yes, all of the parties are subtle distinctions of the same, broad ideas. None of which will sort out the economic problems, and so bring in more money for the government to do things with, because they are all opposed to centralisation, for different reasons.
Because there is no investment in the national infrastructure, it becomes more fragile, so when there is a problem, it becomes serious. Because you only need one railway line into Cornwall most of the time, anything else is stripped, so when that line is damaged, there is nothing else.
Cutting back on dredging, allowing building on flood plains, not having plans for "once in 200 years" problems, because they probably won't occur while I am in office - these are all the problems of short-term thinking, and a failure to invest.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
When we had flooding under the last government, Gordon Brown came in for all the flak - as if all he had to do was rebuke the waters and they would subside to their normal levels. This time the Environment Agency has taken most of the heat, and quite a lot of people seem to be unaware of the link between the size of its budget (controlled by central government) and the number of things it can do to help...
Presumably when the floods occurred during Gordon Brown's premiership (c. 2007, if I recall correctly) government spending was probably higher than it had been for decades?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
We could work out what the maximum sea level is likely to be over the next three hundred years, and start gradually moving things out of the way, inland and higher up.
Uhm no! There are huge problems with estimating maxima. Outlying values depend hugely on the underlying distribution. Maxima are outliers by definition i.e. rare events. This is very different from when we talk of median or average, the underlying distribution can almost be ignored. When I came into my present job twenty years ago this was a research project within the Probability and Statistics department.
An interactive Graph that basically puts under water those areas lower than the level that you specify. However, this does not work for flooding. While two of the areas shown as flooded are in the news this is not completely accurate. Yorkshire seems to have got off with very little while Wales has been hit hard. This is because of the form the weather is taking. Also there almost certainly will be erosion and sediment going on so the map will be different.
So firstly the models are highly dependent on initial assumptions, secondly it looks as if there are a complex set of factors that go to create the situation.
Basically any 300 year maxima has a confidence level around it that is so huge as to make it meaningless.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing is, yes, all of the parties are subtle distinctions of the same, broad ideas. None of which will sort out the economic problems, and so bring in more money for the government to do things with, because they are all opposed to centralisation, for different reasons.
...
Because you only need one railway line into Cornwall most of the time, anything else is stripped, so when that line is damaged, there is nothing else.
But the lines into Cornwall were stripped back because of the Beeching Axe, implemented by a Labour government that did believe in centralisation, government spending, etc.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anglican't: quote:
Presumably when the floods occurred during Gordon Brown's premiership (c. 2007, if I recall correctly) government spending on schools and the NHS was probably higher than it had been for decades?
Fixed that for you [bold text = added by me].
I agree that the previous government had more money to spend, but as Schroediger's Cat has already pointed out they didn't spend much of it on infrastructure. Infrastructure projects are not glamorous and tend to be both controversial and expensive. Look at all the fuss there's been over HS2. Look at the Channel Tunnel project; it took years to agree to build it (centuries, if you count the previous attempts), it went massively over budget and finished late, but now the tunnel's there everyone agrees it is very useful and can't imagine life without it.
And those were transport projects. Flood defences are the kind of thing you don't notice the absence of until just AFTER you realise you needed them...
[ 08. February 2014, 15:07: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I resent the way pundits all seem to accept the argument 'the Environment Agency has to choose what to spend money on according to parameters'. It ignores the simple fact that the EA gets its money from the government - which means that government rather than the EA is responsible for how much it has to spend.
And if the Environment Agency had spent the last couple of decades saying "we really want to dredge the rivers, but we can't afford it" then you might have a point. In fact, the decision to stop dredging was a policy decision based on environmental arguments, and had nothing at all to do with available funding.
The EA chose, as a matter of policy, to accept flooding, both of the agricultural land on the Levels and of people's homes, as a consequence of preferring a "natural" approach to land management.
As the Somerset Levels are about as natural an environment as Holland, I'm not sure that this is a terribly good decision.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
There's no magic to defending low-lying areas against flooding - the Dutch (still the best at doing this sort of thing) know how, and we could ask them.
It does take an awful lot of money. So the current metric here is:
1. How much money are we prepared to throw at the problem?
2. How likely are the residents affected to vote Tory?
1 is inextricably linked to 2. If this flooding was in, say, the coastal area around the Solway Firth (where there's also not many people and lots of farms) there'd be a lot fewer COBRA meetings and a lot more realistic expectations.
[ 08. February 2014, 15:56: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Until fairly recently I lived in Somerset though about 15 miles from the Levels.
The Levels flooded regularly. But this year it is far worse because of the amount of rain that has fallen.
And the Govt (via the Environment Agency) decreed that dredging should not happen. So what would have been a problem anyway has assumed catastrophic proportions.
We haven't had a Left Wing Govt for years so who knows whether anything would have been different. I doubt it. These days I am cynical of all Govts. As Studdert Kennedy said; " When you change your Govt you put one lot of sinners out and another lot of sinners in".
The Somerset Levels require to be dredged as a minimum. The Environment Agency should make that (and not bird sanctuaries) a priority. The Bankers should be made to pay through the nose for diverting public money towards supporting unethical behaviour. And our response ought to begin with the words "Lord have mercy".
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's no magic to defending low-lying areas against flooding - the Dutch (still the best at doing this sort of thing) know how, and we could ask them.
Of course we could - if we had the will all could be sorted.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The Somerset Levels require to be dredged as a minimum. The Environment Agency should make that (and not bird sanctuaries) a priority. The Bankers should be made to pay through the nose for diverting public money towards supporting unethical behaviour. And our response ought to begin with the words "Lord have mercy".
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
The Somerset Levels require to be dredged as a minimum.
Why? Are they that critical for UK sustainability in the way that the Thames Barrier is?
quote:
The Environment Agency should make that (and not bird sanctuaries) a priority.
Why? Given that modern farming techniques produce what are essentially wildlife deserts, why shouldn't the EA take small amounts of land for preserving the natural wildlife that's been ousted by the farmers?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's no magic to defending low-lying areas against flooding - the Dutch (still the best at doing this sort of thing) know how, and we could ask them.
According to a BBC report last week that is precisely what the government has been doing recently.
The south west has had 350% of its January rainfall this year and so I doubt a dredging of the Levels would have made any difference whatsoever. The water will be coming through the ground, as it was shown on TV to be doing in Kent, where they aren't lashing out at anyone because they know that there is bugger all that can be done about a water table that is too high. Dredging the Levels apparently only increases the capacity of a river by around 40% and can create problems further downstream. Also, the lack of trees doesn't help as tree roots absorb rainfall and so modern day farming methods will have contributed towards the inability of the land to absorb the water. In addition, the geology of the area is clay which is notoriously bad at filtering water. Furthermore, the rivers are above the land and so any excess water is soon going to cause flooding and as others have said, the Levels flood every year, two or three times, but normally there wouldn't be 350% of rainfall falling on them within a month. Given that none of the houses or farm buildings are raised from the ground, as they are in areas within the Netherlands, they are going to end up as flooded as the farmland when the rainfall is as bad as it has been in that area over the past month.
Incidentally, for what it's worth, the man in charge of the Environment Agency is a former Labour minister.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
There could be a narrative about communities pulling together to help those suffering from bad weather. There could even be some pleasure to be found in the fact that in these days of excessive human control, nature is still much bigger than we are, and our 'management' of it is an uncertain thing where we still have to take a few steps back sometimes. Part of the appeal of living on the levels, surrounded by reeds and rhynes and wildlife, and the many rivers and drains, yards apart, that you cross on the M5, is that you are there under licence from nature. The spring tides are higher than your doorstep and you may have to pack quickly once in a generation or so.
Great post, but this bit especially appealed to me as there have been a couple of these stories today in fact. For example, the group of Seikhs, I think the reporter said (although I could be imagining that!) who normally go out to far flung places in the world to assist with natural disasters felt moved instead to jump in their cars and drive to the Levels with the necessary equipment and human resources to help people move out of their homes safely and quickly. Or the story of the farmers on dry land buying all the cattle from a farmer whose land is now completely flooded and who had nowhere to graze his cattle.
Surely what truly matters in times of natural disaster when no amount of planning or preparation would have made a gnat's bollocks of difference to the outcome is how those who find themselves in the midst of it all are supported by those who aren't affected, and that goes for areas in Kent and Surrey as well as the Levels, and for the people living precariously on the edges of cliffs or on the shorelines of those counties being battered by storm force 10 gales and waves higher than a three storey house.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
In regard to the OP: I think The Grauniad agrees with that statement.
Of course, one can't agree with the Grauniad, since it is unfashionably left-wing, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
All one has to do is to see what benefit right-wing governments have encouraged for such places as Canada (Harper), US (Shrub...sorry, little Bush), Australia (Abbott and that other guy)...
What was that about Katrina? Bush was surprised? Oh, now why would that be?
And why are the environmental rules always first thing to go when there is oil available anywhere? (read, Cameron, Harper, Alward in New Brunswick...)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
The south west has had 350% of its January rainfall this year and so I doubt a dredging of the Levels would have made any difference whatsoever. The water will be coming through the ground, as it was shown on TV to be doing in Kent, where they aren't lashing out at anyone because they know that there is bugger all that can be done about a water table that is too high. Dredging the Levels apparently only increases the capacity of a river by around 40% and can create problems further downstream. Also, the lack of trees doesn't help as tree roots absorb rainfall and so modern day farming methods will have contributed towards the inability of the land to absorb the water.
Just to point out that George Monbiot agrees with this assessment here. (I realise that there are those who think anything Monbiot says must be Marxist propaganda that would make Stalin blush.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
All one has to do is to see what benefit right-wing governments have encouraged for such places as Canada (Harper), US (Shrub...sorry, little Bush), Australia (Abbott and that other guy)...
The benefits or otherwise of Australia's conservative governments can be debated at length (although it'd be nice if one could display a basic knowledge of them before throwing Aust. into the mix) but please do not presume to comment on Australia's ability to deal with crises.
One thing's for sure, no matter which political party is in power, Australian VOLUNTEERS (including members of govt. from both sides of politics) are always off their arses, sandbagging, evacuating, rescuing, feeding and sheltering and cleaning-up rather than wailing and moaning about the government and scoring cheap political points.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What was that about Katrina? Bush was surprised? Oh, now why would that be?
No, he wasn't surprised since he created the hurricane and steered it into New Orleans. Mmm hmm.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
It would be interesting to find a website or a person who actually knew about the drainage of the Somerset levels. The BBC certainly haven't come up with anyone able to give an informed opinion yet.
Flood defences isn't the right term, since we're talking about flooding from rainfall water that we want to leave the levels, not sea water that we want to keep out. I think. Dredging the levels isn't right either. It's the rivers that could be dredged.
As you drive down the M5 you cross the Yeo, the Blind Yeo, the Lox, King's Sedgmoor Drain, the Parrett, the Huntspill and many others. Perhaps 12 rivers in ten miles. Most of them are dead straight, wide, and on a normal day have no visible flow. Looking on the internet I see that there are many more rivers than this in a complicated interconnecting pattern with pumps and sluices and different elevations so that they will drain into each other in the right way. There are also many miles of deep ditches called rhynes. It's clearly a problem keeping the levels free of water.
Monbiot's point about trees in the hills to hold the water up before it comes down stream doesn't make much sense to me in this context. For one thing it has been too wet. I can see that letting the highlands get soggy could absorb a week or two's rain, but we're now in the eighth week of storms and the rain is just bound to pour down to the levels. And the Mendips are limestone. Water doesn't stay on the surface for long there, it goes vertically down into underground streams and emerges at the edges of the hills very fast.
I also don't see any trade off between floods and bird sanctuaries. Compared to putting in a new river or two, bird sanctuaries are cheap cheap, and probably perfectly compatible with whatever else we might want to do.
I just think it's been too wet. People haven't been washed away. As far as I know saltwater isn't contaminating the land. Bridges haven't collapsed. Cattle haven't drowned.
What it does do, though, is tap into the 'naughty humans' myth. That is what is driving the news story.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The point about bird reserves needs some amplification. I think we are talking about wetlands, which can be used to take up a lot of water like a massive sponge; they also have other functions such as removing pollution, preventing soil erosion, and so on.
I suppose the point is that there used to be natural wetlands, which absorbed a lot of water, but they have been drained, farmed, and the water has to go somewhere.
This also connects with the restoration of peat bogs and moorland, which can also be used to hold water.
These are not automatic solutions - there has to be careful overall assessment of a large area, within a strategic plan to avoid flooding - no doubt, the government is on top of this (*sarcasm alert*).
Incidentally, it's interesting how little discussion there is of climate change - I know that you can't link one event to this, but you do start to wonder!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, it's interesting how little discussion there is of climate change - I know that you can't link one event to this, but you do start to wonder!
The Met Office is beginning to wonder too.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think Cameron made some reference to climate change, but it's not popular amongst Tory politicians, and in fact, politicians in general, who probably hope that it will all go away quietly, so they can get on with planning how to win the next election. What could be more important than that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Doc Tor:
quote:
1 is inextricably linked to 2. If this flooding was in, say, the coastal area around the Solway Firth (where there's also not many people and lots of farms) there'd be a lot fewer COBRA meetings and a lot more realistic expectations.
Good points, but there's another factor that you forgot to mention:
3. How many people from London have holiday or weekend cottages in the area?
[ 09. February 2014, 09:02: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Let it be said though, that planning flood defences does go on all the time - for example, I think Worcester, which normally floods, has not been so badly affected so far, after new flood measures were built.
But part of this planning is also to deliberately allow flooding in some areas; possibly, this decision has been taken in relation to the Levels, since it's too big and too sparsely populated, although no doubt, they won't be shouting that from the roof tops right now.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Cameron made some reference to climate change, but it's not popular amongst Tory politicians, and in fact, politicians in general, who probably hope that it will all go away quietly, so they can get on with planning how to win the next election. What could be more important than that?
The problem is BBC lack of bias. In the early part of the climate change debate the BBC would let scientists who said there was no global warming equal time in debate with those who said the planet was warming.
The problem is that the latter far outnumbered the former, and the impression was not that the global warming deniers were a small minority, but that it was an unknown. The BBC idea of being unbiased is biased towards minority views.
But I don't think that it is the right-wingness of the UK government that is the problem. The US government has never been socialist by UK standards, but the New Deal of the 1930s (particularly the less liberal First New Deal) this would be centre right by UK standards.
It is the insistence that financial problems should be tackled by cuts alone that is the problem. If the problem takes longer than anticipated to solve what will they do when there's nothing left to cut? We need to have some growth measures as well as cuts. This can be done without resorting to left wing politics.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
What was that about Katrina? Bush was surprised? Oh, now why would that be?
No, he wasn't surprised since he created the hurricane and steered it into New Orleans. Mmm hmm.
from the linked article:
quote:
‘George Bush, a self-professed shrinker of federal government, displayed a similar inability to act in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.'
So he was surprised when it turned out that governments that can act are, in fact, needed.
Mmm hmm
I can play childish if necessary, but what is your actual point?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, it's interesting how little discussion there is of climate change - I know that you can't link one event to this, but you do start to wonder!
The Met Office is beginning to wonder too.
I notice he says :
quote:
David Cameron has said the UK must be prepared for more extreme weather.
be 'be prepared' I think he means 'put up with' and 'stop moaning about' and especially 'don't imagine it's anyone else's responsibility'
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Taliesin:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, it's interesting how little discussion there is of climate change - I know that you can't link one event to this, but you do start to wonder!
The Met Office is beginning to wonder too.
I notice he says :
quote:
David Cameron has said the UK must be prepared for more extreme weather.
be 'be prepared' I think he means 'put up with' and 'stop moaning about' and especially 'don't imagine it's anyone else's responsibility'
Isn't Cameron also giving a perfunctory nod to the green agenda, whilst also saying sotto voce to his backbenchers, 'don't worry, we aren't going to make a song and dance about climate change, as we know it only upsets the Tory voters in the Home Counties - vote blue, and we'll fuck the greens up the arse, if you will forgive the indelicacy'?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by quetalcoatl quote:
Isn't Cameron also giving a perfunctory nod to the green agenda, whilst also saying sotto voce to his backbenchers, 'don't worry, we aren't going to make a song and dance about climate change, as we know it only upsets the Tory voters in the Home Counties - vote blue, and we'll fuck the greens up the arse, if you will forgive the indelicacy'?
No.
But what Mr Cameron, among some politicians from all parties, is saying is that choices have to be made between some supposedly 'green' ideas and others. The case of future electrical generating needs is a classic example: it is all well and good saying using only wind/wave, but if you persist in trying to use a method (wind) that cannot be accurately forecasted, and at the same time also insist on allowing potentially infinite growth in population, and hence infinite increased demand, then something has to give. At that stage blanket bans on both fracking and nuclear - and possibly also of tidal generation if it comes to a clear choice between wetland habitat/birds and generation of power - is obstructive, clueless and stupid.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I can play childish if necessary, but what is your actual point?
You can go ahead and play it if you want, whatever floats your boat. I just find it interesting when people complain about Bush regarding Katrina but fail to mention the sorry job done by governor Blanco and mayor Nagin, too.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I see the loathsome Pickles is now blaming the Environment Agency for their advice re dredging in the Levels. 'We shouldn't have listened to them!'
As you, I and everyone who's ever worked in the Civil Service knows, offer advice that involves spending money on a potential risk (ie one that may not happen before the next election) and you will be told to advise again. The man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But what Mr Cameron, among some politicians from all parties, is saying is that choices have to be made between some supposedly 'green' ideas and others. The case of future electrical generating needs is a classic example: it is all well and good saying using only wind/wave, but if you persist in trying to use a method (wind) that cannot be accurately forecasted, and at the same time also insist on allowing potentially infinite growth in population, and hence infinite increased demand, then something has to give. At that stage blanket bans on both fracking and nuclear - and possibly also of tidal generation if it comes to a clear choice between wetland habitat/birds and generation of power - is obstructive, clueless and stupid.
Sorry, but this is pretty clueless in itself.
Generating electricity isn't magic: it involves either turning a turbine by diverse and sundry inputs of mechanical energy, either directly or by turning water into steam, or that new fangled photovoltaic method. More energy is expended in the skies, around the coasts and even under the ground of the UK than we'll use in the currently foreseeable future without burning so much as a twig.
This is not to say that 100% renewables is easy, or necessarily cheap in the short-medium term. A reliable storage mechanism needs to be found to smooth out the peaks and troughs of generation. But it is, in particular a problem of right-wing governments that short-termism and faux-conservation come together to stymie the century-long planning that's actually needed.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
1. How much money are we prepared to throw at the problem?
2. How likely are the residents affected to vote Tory?
1 is inextricably linked to 2. If this flooding was in, say, the coastal area around the Solway Firth (where there's also not many people and lots of farms) there'd be a lot fewer COBRA meetings and a lot more realistic expectations. [/QB]
I sort of agree with the point you're making, but, on a point of order:
2 of the three seats touching on the Solway Firth, Penrith and the Border, and Dumfriesshire Clydesdale and Tweeddale, are Conservative (the other's Workington which is Labour), and one of them is their only Scottish seat (and historically marginal). The North Coast of the Workington constituency since the boundary changes include areas around Silloth which used to be part of Penrith & the Border until 2010 and are historically blue, which means that pretty well both sides of the Solway Firth are indeed Tory voters either in current seats, or the sort of people who need to be built on to win seats back. Accepting of course, the snowball's chance in hell of turning Workington blue.
Sorry, psephology fascinats me!
I think we can be pretty sure COBRA would be meeting as frequently for the Solway Firth as for southern England - regardless of derogation to the Scottish Executive on one side of the firth.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
sorry, stuffed up the coding there...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
