Coast villages to be sacrificed to the sea (News from the UK)

[Audio_Al]

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Coast villages to be sacrificed to the sea
By Melissa Kite and Richard Gray
Last Updated: 4:11am GMT 11/11/2007

Whole villages and swathes of agricultural land will be surrendered to the sea because the Government is unwilling to spend billions of pounds on flood defences.

Ministers have admitted privately that they are preparing to evacuate settlements on the east coast within the next 30 years because it is not "cost effective" to save them. Thousands of acres of farmland will be allowed to flood, potentially jeopardising food production in areas such as East Anglia.

Parts of the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline will not be given a penny for defences because they have been deemed impossible to save, according to leaked details of the Government's coastal flooding and erosion risk assessment. The study, which is being conducted by the Environment Agency and will report in June next year, uses a points system to decide which parts of coastline will receive flood defences and which will be abandoned.






Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/11/nflood111.xml

---

The story of this storm surge received little or no coverage here in the United States. But we may have to face this in the future on lands exposed to the oceans.

Respectfully,

Audio Al

[msongs]

1. storm surge turned out to be minor event according to radio report nt

[Audio_Al]

2. The article speaks of things to come in the next 30 years, Msongs.

And what about the people who owned THESE properties?

[msongs]

6. referring to this line in the OP -

"The story of this storm surge received little or no coverage here in the United States. But we may have to face this in the future on lands exposed to the oceans."

was also an article in LA Times and our local paper

Msongs

[Audio_Al]

11. Sorry about that.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Those actually appear to be

to be beach huts - possibly owned and rented out by the local council and not for normal habitation. That is not something you could possibly have realised and your intentions in publishing that spectacular picture are appreciated.

Here's a link to the problems and contibutary issues in that area : http://members.aol.com/ruraleye/gowen4a.htm

[T_i_B]

20. Those are beach huts

Notoriously expensive and only used by people in the summer to get changed and brew up a cuppa in whilst at the seaside with family. Nobody actually lives in them properly.

[benh57]

3. Story not directly related to surge

This is more of a global warming story. Global warming = sea levels rising.

[Audio_Al]

5. Exactly.

However, you might want to see these pictures:

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/video/07/11/floodsslideshow.aspx

[hang a left]

27. Appears some people may have lived there...

"properly".

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Not in the beach huts, if that's what you mean

People aren't allowed to live in them - they get in trouble for it:

Evolving from the Victorian bathing machines, beach huts began to appear on British beaches in the Edwardian era providing shelter and basic facilities associated with beach use.

Occupation is invariably subject to restrictions imposed by the local authority both precluding their use as overnight accommodation (normally between 10 pm and 6 am) and restricting the use to which the hut can be put.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/rating_manual/vol5/sect95/frame.htm

[dipsydoodle]

40. If so then you you might have great difficulty

in explaining why a similar occurence in 1953 was considerably worse. http://www.essex-estuaries.co.uk/1953Floods.htm

It's a simple matter of fact when that a depression north east of Scotland coincides with a high tide the same will always happen. Last week's one would have been worse if it had been at the spring tide 26th November.

[grasswire]

4. disaster capitalism

From chaos comes profitability. The Brits had better read Naomi Klein's new book.

[Audio_Al]

12. Yes. Naomi Klein has quite an active web site. She even had a review in the UK.

From: http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

Disaster Capitalism in the News

"Now that the world's eyes have turned away, the Peloponnese is facing its own moment of what Naomi Klein has called 'disaster capitalism.' She has documented how big business turns disaster to its advantage - whether in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Sri Lanka after the tsunami or Iraq since the occupation. In Greece, the scale may be smaller but the pattern is familiar: an inept government, which is slow to respond to the disaster; private initiatives rushing in to fill the gap; local officials seizing the chance to push forward pet schemes, and a resident population too bewildered to do anything about it. 'We're all in shock still,' says Maria Pothou, in the village of Makistos. 'And yet we have to try to organise ourselves and try to make decisions.'"

- Maria Margaronis, The Guardian, November 9, 2007

[Joanne98]

28. I'm reading it now! I didn't know how bad the coal miners were hit by Thatcher!

What a witch!

[Delphinus]

31. I've only read a long story someone

linked me from another website - but man, it sickens me to see what the truth really is. I don't think I'm up, right now, to reading the entire book. Horrid. Truly horrid.

[rodeodance]

7. I wonder if the US has done a 30 year assessment? or more?

[Audio_Al]

9. Excellent point. They haven't been able to resolve the problem in the one city that has suffered

the most...

New Orleans.

[aquart]

8. Settlements and farms. So rural, so unpopulous.

What about the seaports? The seaport cities? THAT's what we're ALL going to be losing. You think a displaced Iraq population is a difficult mess? Where will we put the people of New York, Miami, Boston, Portland, Atlantic City, Newport News,St. Petersburg, Sarasota, Charleston, Cape Canaveral and all the others I left out?

[Audio_Al]

10. Aquart, I am a 73 year old man. I am sitting here...

just thinking about what you have said has brought me to such sadness.

[aquart]

17. Me, too.

I love my city. Most of the time I don't even think about it as an island.

I'd like to be wrong. But since Katrina, rain makes me more afraid than I was after 9/11, when a plane overhead would me stop dead until it passed.

We are thinking about dinky solutions for plastic bags but not that our drinking water is disappearing, that the wheat belt is moving north to Canada, that we may break apart fighting for water and food.

We think that will happen elsewhere. But some nations are far better prepared than we are. And far more used to helping each other as a system, rather than a spectacular event.

What George Bush has done by halting any research or preparation for climate change is to set the stage for the death of America.

And that is what our next president is going to have to face and grapple with.

I keep saying, anyone with kids, arrange marriages with landowning farmers in central Canada.

[Delphinus]

32. aquart, you have brought up

some truly valid points. We are, indeed, only thinking of dinky solutions and not the underlying, core issues.

How did we get here? And is there anyway out?

[Divine Discontent]

13. that's why I think NASA is leaving Cape Canaveral for Houston in a few years... n/t

[lynnertic]

30. wyoming

?

[amandabeech]

38. I wouldn't be so hasty in dismissing those farmlands and the folks who work them.

It is a good thing that those areas are not populous, because farming heavily populated areas is quite difficult.

IMHO, global warming will decrease the amount of decently watered farmland, but may not decrease population at a similar pace. Even now, the world's supply of grain is very, very low because of mad weather in such places as Australia, northern China and western Canada.

Some land is needed to feed those cities. If no one saves the land, then fewer people in the cities have nice full bellies.

As to where we put the people in the cities, how about a new Venice? But seriously, we have to keep our population down to the number of people who can be relocated, if necessary, and who can be fed and provided with clean water.

Frankly, it is the primary reason that I don't support unrestricted immigration, legal or illegal. I think that it is immoral to bring in people that we simply may not be able to provide for, unless we pave over more rain-fed farmland, chop down more forests and fill more marshes. And I would be prepared to send a lot of what ever is needed to places in the world that really need to stabilize their populations.

[Kolesar]

47. What about New Orleans?

Rebuild it just to have a hurricane smash the levees or have the river jump its banks?

[intaglio]

14. It's not News, its the Torygraph

This has been policy for 20 or more years. Why? because erosion is a natural process and, in general, flood defenses cause more problems than they solve. Examples:
1) flood defenses at Filey cause more erosion down the coast at Holderness due to there being no deposition of sandbanks and bars to defend that hugely vulnerable coast resulting in meters of erosion per year;

2) Sea walls at near Maldon prevent flooding of (largely unused) farmland resulting which leaves the coast at the mercy of storm surges and increased silting of sea routes outside the storm tides.

[fedsron2us]

16. In this case fighting nature is pointless

Coastal erosion on the East Coast has been causing English villages to disappear into the sea for centuries.

http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/dunwichas.html

Anyone brought up in these parts of the world pretty soon learns that you do not own the land
just borrow it from nature. In fact allowing sea intrusion to create wetlands and marshes is probably one of the simplest, cheapest and best ways to protect the wider shoreline. It also creates an environment which if harvested correctly can be every bit as productive as the farm land lost.

[Audio_Al]

35. Fedsron2us, that is a fascinating link! Thanks for posting it.

"...You do not own the land, (you) just borrow it from nature."

That is one great quote.

To which we should add -- something like:

"We, too, are borrowed from nature, and go back to it in the end."

Also, 2,000 years of erosion is just a blip in the history of Earth.

Respectfully,

Audio Al
--
Volunteer contributor/co-host at Oregon Public Broadcasting's Accessible Information Network
Read about this audio service at http://opb.org/accessinfonet

[T_i_B]

21. You mention the sea walls out Maldon way

But recently they have decided to put a big hole in those sea walls and create a salt marsh in order to ease the erosion further down the Essex coast. I would suggest that your info on the Dengie Hundreds might be slightly out of date.

[whistle]

18. Does this mean that Big Oil has taken top priority in the UK also?

...You know, "We would rather fight terrorists and keep our middle east oil supplies than then spend the money to save the homes and farm lands of our own citizens living on and near the coast lines!"

On the other hand it may be that political leaders are finally admitting that global warming is in fact happening at an accelerating rate and there is no way to hold back rising oceans that threaten all coastal areas around the world.

[Preening Fop]

19. As Florida and coastlines slip into the sea, the Corporations will protect the Chosen Few.

So, :hide: why worry.

[T_i_B]

22. This is a familiar story here in East Anglia

Local councils are forever lobbying for more money to be used for sea defences and the government currently is not being forthcoming.

Of course the fact that the coastal bits of East Anglia hardly ever vote Labour might have something to do with that.

[Nihil]

42. There's also a lot of sense in it.

> Of course the fact that the coastal bits of East Anglia hardly ever
> vote Labour might have something to do with that.

There again, the idea of dumping money into the sea might not have too
much appeal even if the area was chock-full of Labour voters.

I'm quite pleased to see that there is the beginning of a plan to help
people over the next 30 years rather than just waiting for disaster to
strike. Mind you, I bet that a lot of that 30 years will be pissed away
by "protests", pleas for public inquiries and other political stunts
from the parish councillors from Lower Hengistbottom or wherever who
simply don't want to accept that the world is changing ...

:shrug:

[T_i_B]

43. "political stunts from the parish councillors from Lower Hengistbottom"

Well if a councillors ward looks like it's going to fall into the North Sea then they have every reason to make kick up a stink about it.

[Nihil]

44. "Every reason"?

> Well if a councillors ward looks like it's going to fall into the
> North Sea then they have every reason to make kick up a stink about it.

I'd suggest that the councillor stops throwing toys out of the pram about
something that simply isn't going to pay any attention to his bluster and
starts to plan for the safe evacuation of the people who elected him.

Canute made a very similar point several centuries ago but it looks like
too many people failed to pay attention during their history lessons.

[T_i_B]

45. No, they have a totally legitimate case

And besides, people who live by the coast tend to actually quite like living by the coast and they aren't going to take to kindly to some fucknut from whitehall telling them that their property should be in the North Sea and they should all fuck off elsewhere.

[Nihil]

46. As legitimate as someone who moves next to an airport and complains about the noise ...

... or someone who moves to the countryside and complains about the smell
or someone who gets a nice riverside cottage then wonders why it floods
in the rainy season.

:shrug:

> And besides, people who live by the coast tend to actually quite like
> living by the coast ...

Fine. People who live in the mountains often like living in the mountains
but they'll get bugger-all sympathy when they moan about how much petrol
it takes them to drive to the nearest shop.

If you live by the coast, you have to expect erosion, silting and flooding
as it all comes with the territory - literally!

> ... and they aren't going to take to kindly to some fucknut from whitehall
> telling them that their property should be in the North Sea and they
> should all fuck off elsewhere.

Whilst I agree that Whitehall probably has the largest concentration of
fucknuts in the country, it really isn't their fault that someone bought
a house next to the sea without understanding natural processes and the
risks inherent in that location.

No-one is telling them that their property *should* be in the North Sea,
they are simply warning them that it is going to happen *regardless* of
any tantrums from people ignorant of the effect of natural forces so the
smart thing to do is prepare.

I'm not denying that it's a real pisser to realise that global warming is
coming to their very own doorstep rather than just to some poor bastard over
in Bangladesh. I am however saying that demanding expensive temporary
measures (for that's all they will be - temporary) that actively move the
problem from one doorstep to some other stranger's doorstep down the coast
is not a reasonable approach.

Finally, I am very unhappy to find that a DUer (for whom I have a high
regard) is apparently affected personally but having endured indignant
complaints on two of my first three comparisons above in the last month
(and finding far worse attitudes to nature in other forums here every day)
I was feeling less charitable than I should have been about the futility
of fighting nature. I'll try to be more generic with my comments in the
future; sorry if my brusque response inflamed an already sensitive
situation.

(Edit for rephrasing)

[alarimer]

23. I'm afraid that we will have to do something similar

All those barrier islands should be depopulated and everyone moved inland, since there is no way to protect barrier island that doesn't lead to more problems in the end. They are basically sandbars, only a few feet above sea level now. When that sea level rises, even just a few feet, there will be big trouble. Florida itself will be mostly underwater. I only hope we have enough warning to move people.

[Maine-ah]

24. I hate to say this, but

at least they're being honest and giving plenty of time for relocation (30 years). You cannot control mother nature, and especially the sea, she is a raging bitch sometimes. I know this from growing up by her, and the many fisherman who have died off our coasts trying to earn a living. It is a sad situation, but, they could flat out lie like our own government and NOLA.

We need to do everything we can to stave back global warming, but, somethings you just can't control.

[MindMatter]

29. You can bet that our government

is having similar discussions. It isn't public, of course, because Halliburton hasn't finished their business plan for how they can make $200,000,000,000 from the dislocation.

[yardwork]

25. All climate models show severe loss of coastal areas in the U.S. in the next 30 years.

It's too late to stop it. North Carolina, for example, will lose its barrier islands, including the famous Outer Banks.

[JeanGrey]

33. Do you have a link to all the climate

models you speak of? Thanks.

[bikebloke]

26. New Zealand, too

After big storms hit Northland this year, Helen Clark, the PM, suggested that due to global warming, some towns will have to be moved.

It must be nice to have a government that actually thinks.

[ooglymoogly]

34. Why is Holland which is in the same weather and shares the same

sea apparently not in danger and why cant dumber folk like * use their model in places like NOLA. Or is that disaster just what he and the neocons were planning for.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Update from BBC: Coastal defences 'not abandoned'

Coastal defences 'not abandoned'

Last Updated: Sunday, 11 November 2007, 16:12 GMT

The government has denied claims it has a "general" policy of allowing coastal villages to fall into the sea if deemed too costly to defend against flooding.

The rebuttal comes after reports that a coastal flooding and erosion risk assessment showed parts of England's east coast were beyond saving.

Ministers were reported to be willing to evacuate villages over the next 30 years if sea defence is too expensive.

A spokesperson said it was committed to "sustainable protection".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7089652.stm

[KamaAina]

37. We may have to face this in the future?

The future started on 8/29/05, I'm afraid. :(



Apparently there are Denny Hastert "Should we rebuild?" types across the pond as well. Pity.

[opihimoimoi]

41. Holy Crap. ...dats me hale ovah deah by da mango tree.....