Quote:
Originally Posted by techguyone
I agree with Tweetie (I also worked on a Y2K project team)
Reality is, the climate changes, it changed before man, it'll change after man, perhaps if we spent less time as a species bickering about who did what, and actually adapted our practises around Nature, we might get on better.
Meandering rivers are an option, as are leaky dams, temp water run off areas etc.
Whilst some people are stuck with living underwater, many more aren't, I do despair when you get morons going on about their 'wonderful river view' then crying when their property goes submarine, why would anyone (who has a choice) willingly set up house in an area known for flooding , and since the year 2000 it's happened enough times in the usual places for people to be in the know.
|
'Bickering about who did what' is kinda crucial when you consider that the changes that are happening now have never before occurred so rapidly through natural causes. ( I discount apocalyptic events like asteroids and super volcanoes here.) The evidence that our contribution of greenhouse gases is the crucial factor, in this rapidly evolving trend towards warming, is overwhelming. Keeping the global rise below 2C, if that is still possible, may just prevent catastrophe.
Your second point I agree with. At the same time as accepting the blame for adding to existing climate change, we must learn to mitigate against the effects by working with nature as much as possible. Those building along rivers in the past did so knowing that they might get away with a once in a 100 years event, and enjoy the benefits of riverside living. This was not just recreational, because rivers were once a crucial source of water, food and transport. This is why most of our towns are adjacent to rivers. However, today we may be seeing a cluster of 'once in a 100 years' events, possible caused by global warming, and getting worse as time goes by. We no longer need to live along rivers, (our infrastructures allow us to build and thrive anywhere), so we just stop doing it!
Meanwhile we have to decide what towns and what assets are capable of being saved having taken all the flood prevention measures we can. Would we want flood barriers higher than the properties they are supposed to protect? No, probably not. Would we want some farmland turned into permanent wetlands to protect the towns below. Probably. Some farmland and some riverside assets may just have to be let go.
Translate our minimal UK problems into those we see in low altitude islands, in coastal plains, river deltas and lowland countries and we can see why we should be spending even more in aiding those locations regardless of who is to blame. We are talking about the possibility, as sea levels rise and as river flooding increases, of having to relocate billions of people, not just from developing countries either. I have not mentioned drought yet! Sea and river defenses and water supply schemes are the only thing that may buy us time over the next two generations. The consequences for economics, politics, culture and society generally of having to relocate all those people, (refugees and migrants), doesn't bear thinking about; yet we have to think about it.