To add, it isn't just sprawl, it's any development that doesn't mitigate it's impact in it's drainage basin. Denser development is better than suburban sprawl for reducing the amount of paving in a region and the associated environmental impact of millions of daily vehicle miles, but denser development built over older infrastructure or inadequate drainage infrastructure creates the same problem. Not to mention we continually develop literally to the edges of water and then are shocked when floods happen.
Dad fought the same planning case literally for decades to stop building on the Christchurch coast either on the estuary spit, or on reclaimed coastal marshland. Then the Christchurch earthquake settled the issue by destroying 1000s of homes on the wetlands But his Court argument was the same as yours. If you want to ensure the sea, river, or liquefaction is in your house then please build subdivisions on flood plains / wetlands / storm zones What was fascinating about the quake is how it proved him 100% right. Geologically speaking, within recent times, the coastline went thru the middle of Christchurch city You can draw the line of quake damage precisely thru the city where the sea used to be, whereas everything on the shingle plane was hardly damaged. Give it 10 years and there will be another effort to build homes in high risk areas
Here's a good NZ example of what you are talking about Let's build up subdivisions in the vicinity of this puppy - what could go wrong? As you say, the farmland is doing an important safety job - ready to take millions of litres of flood water
It's the same over here... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/25/why-concrete-rain-flash-floods-weatherwatch http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26466653 I used to live right on the edge of this place... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenn's,_Whixall_and_Bettisfield_Mosses_National_Nature_Reserve Which is sphagnum moss, one of the best ways of retaining water. That didn't stop people trying to drain the mosses to build houses until they realised they were fighting a losing battle. It's actually part of the old Lake Lapworth that eventually drained out through what became Ironbridge Gorge. When that happened, (at the end of the ice age IIRC), it exposed coal, iron ore, fireclay, limestone, etc., which led to the industrial revolution, including the building of this... Interestingly, when it was built it was slightly 'flatter'... It's been changed by the movement inward of the sides of the gorge since it was built in 1797. That's also necessitated the council having to carry out repairs every few years... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-31764313 Anyway the point is that if people look, there are signs of movement and change all around us. The idea that things will remain precisely as they are NOW because they've always been that way, is nonsense... because they haven't.
MY grandfather made a pilgrimage to that bridge! His family was from round there. In general the big "processes" are had for laymen to get IMO They see land so lets use it. They don't really get the power of rivers, coastal processes etc to destroy what they build. This was nowhere more obvious than the CHC quake. Half the city is built on land that should never have been used.
Yeah, TLW's family is from around here, The Ironbridge is only about 5-6 miles away from me. Myself and the rest of the labour party canvassers usually go and have a drink in 'The Golden Ball Inn' which is about half a mile away and my daughter used to work at Enginuity which is part of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust. If people have an interest in industrial history it's a fascinating area. The thing is, if they just look around them, it's pretty obvious. Why is that hill there? Why does that river bend that way and not this? Over here we don't really have earthquakes in any meaningful way but we DO have rain and sometimes it floods. The advice to the government, though, is for building to continue on flood plains largely due to lack of available land... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...uilt-on-flood-plains-despite-risks-says-panel I can't help thinking that, if housing is designed intelligently, it should be possible to build and not have too much of a problem. I saw a house design in an article, (which I now can't find), that was a 3-storey building BUT with only garaging and storage on the lower level. It also had no wall plastering so there was no question of it having to be redone after water, (and sewerage), damage. I seem to remember the electrical circuits were done differently as well but I'm not too sure exactly what the difference was... maybe a circuit breaker to isolate them if they had supply via catenary wires??? Not sure! Anyway, it meant that, other than cleaning, homes could be returned to use relatively quickly and at low cost. IIRC the particular design meant that only floods over 14ft would be a problem which covers. Of course, that was for flood plains... NOT flash floods which can happen in many places apart from the tops of hills and even THERE depending on the topography.
VW boss announced today: -- 30 billion investment plan until 2030 to electrify all of their current 300 models -- 50 billion invitation to bid for who can offer a suitable battery solution
Not just a global warming issue, but certainly a function of human impact on other species, and quite likely the most alarming thing I have read of late. This seems like a catastrophic event to me if there has been a 75% decline in insect population over the last thirty years. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/19/europe/insect-decline-germany/index.html
I've noticed this. You no longer see hoards of them around street lights. And cross country drives used to require a regular de-bugging of the windshield. I suspect pesticide use in agriculturebusiness plays some role.
When I was a kid there used to be enough June Bugs (beetles) that we would go outside at night with those big plastic baseball bats and swat at them. Fairly rare occurrence to see them now. I've always thought we'd (humans) eventually be forced to switch over to a diet that had insects as an important part, guess I was wrong there.
Don't give up hope. With Trump and Little Rocket Man, we're not too far away for digging for grubs to survive.
Or... Maybe that grand nuclear war; while making some areas of the planet uninhabitable, will reduce the global population, bringing it back to down to sustainable numbers. flip of a coin I guess.
Yes, that is really ********ed up. I'm kind of worried, that this isn't making bigger waves over here. Probably because a lot of people don't have any clue about the importance of insects in an ecosystem. Insects are those annoying little pests that quite literally bug you when you are having a nice day out in the countryside. Less of them is better, right? Coincidentally this was the first year ever that I haven't gotten any mosquito stings when I was visiting my parents in the countryside this year. They are still living in my childhood home and this was downright wired. There are always tons of those things, because they have a small pond and the neighbours have a small pond and people collect rain water for their plants in open barrels. Lot's of breeding grounds all around. I always sleep with the windows open and I always get stung. A lot. This time, nothing at all. Not a single one. I asked my parents about it and they didn't have any stings all year as far as the could remember. That's seriously strange.
Based on my experience backpacking in the High Sierra this summer my guess is they've all moved up there.
Last night, up to 40 GW of wind power provided over 60% of German electricity, squeezing out fossil & nuclear and causing negative prices. pic.twitter.com/mMUG7LWUCP— Kees van der Leun (@Sustainable2050) October 29, 2017
⚡️ “CO2 in atmosphere is at the highest level for 800,000 years says UN” https://twitter.com/i/moments/924959748490973185
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/ No substance to the agreement, but we knew that already.
From article : So is the argument against climate accords that they're not cutting enough? I guess I'm confused ... if cutting green house emissions is a good thing, surely 33% is better than 0%. I'm used to naysayers arguing that cuts aren't needed, not that we aren't cutting enough.
Could you find a better article, one that doesn't end with... So, does this mean the planet is doomed? Hardly. As we have noted in this space many times, all those forecasts of global catastrophe are based on computer models that have been unreliable predictors of warming. And all of the horror stories assume the worst. While I haven't read the UN report, and I am not dismissing this commentary, I am dubious as to the bias and reasoning behind what they say. Very clearly, that is pro-business article..I mean, editorial.