I think this deserves its own gig
ARTICLES
Guardian - Chaotic flood defences leave large areas at risk, say MPs - Surprise, surprise. But next time what's the betting we hear 'It's AGW... no one expected this level of...'
BBC - Benn denies flood plan 'chaos' - 'Did too'...'Do not, so muhr...'. Edifying
Indy - Is flooding really as big a risk to Britain now as terrorism?
Times - Thousands more face floods - break out the wellies!
BBC - Insurers agree flood cover deal - Helps a bit
Telegraph - NEW - Flood game shows UK cities under water - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, though given his reasons I am not so sure I'm that thrilled: 'Given your proximity to a river prone to flooding, I think I should leave this one to you.'
INFORMATION
Environment Agency Floodline - actually quite useful, with email and text warnings
Flood Maps
Flood forum
Floodsim - NEW - a game, though maybe not too much fun for some
Homecheck -
Association of British Insurers -
I'll need to add more when they come in, or collate later. For now, check out the labels below
Showing posts with label FLOOD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FLOOD. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
At least you'll know in advance that your screwed
Two pieces on flood issues just in.
One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.
LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008
In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.
The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.
Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:
“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.
“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.
“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”
“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”
Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.
BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas
Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:
'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'
What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.
And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.
I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.
I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.
And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.
Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.
Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).
Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.
Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.
If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.
But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.
One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.
LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008
In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.
The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.
Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:
“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.
“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.
“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”
“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”
Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.
BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas
Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:
'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'
What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.
And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.
I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.
I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.
And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.
Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.
Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).
Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.
Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.
If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.
But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Image problem
Just watching a piece on BBC Brekky about people paving over their drives causing flooding.
In a sedate suburban avenue the reporter posed before a very extensively covered front lawn, upon which was perched a dirty great Merc 4x4.
'Hmnn', I thought. "Why would a drive/vehicle combo like that have been chosen? Ho-hum. Subtle. But there is a fair question to be asked as to why one needs such a thing in such a location. Another story'.
But no, the piece was then introduced as being an alliterative choice (I forget the precise words) between 'Your flora and your four by four'.
So far, so... obvious. It was a front lawn, there must have been a trowel handy to lay it on with.
But then a few moments later, it was email read-out time. Now I don't know if they were shy on things to share, had a rare desire for objective critique sharing, or thought it was a chance to make a bitchy, snarky point that they know best how to 'do' 'reporting', but the bouffant and blonde read out the suggestion from a viewer that 'Perhaps such driveways also play host to more modest vehicles, too'. I have to say it was calmly, fairly, and rather pertinetly put, too.
So, to much curling of lip, we get the 'witty' suggestion that it perhaps should have been 'Peugeots instead of Petunias'.
Another less than fine hour in the great 'we have no subjective agenda' that is the output of our public broadcaster. I am not sure if these front persons write their own stuff, but it's not coming across very well.
Yesterday I took the bouffant to task on a piece on ageism. To a studio guest who had just shared she had lost her job through turning 70 his flip first (I can alliterate too) comment was 'But you don't look it'. My question as to whether her dismissal would have been OK if she had looked it (physical comeliness not being a factor in BBC presenter selection, natch) was not replied to, oddly.
There are points to be made, but if this is the best way they can think to make them I doubt they will create many converts.
ADDENDUM:
Just watched a follow up. And on a more serious, and in one case helpful note this raised a few more tangible issues.
First up, and of relevance, was that many householders were opting for this because the council was introducing paid parking in the street. Well, D'Uh. Why paid? No option for residents permits? No wonder the residents are thinking of solutions closer to home.
Next, there is the very sensible consideration that if you do opt this way, go porous! This option needed much positive promotion.
I'll also bolt on some commentary about a related issue (as brought up)... flooding.
I fully accept that this trend will not help with run off. But the point was raised as to how this stacks up against paving over vast tracts of virgin countryside with new towns, however eco.
And it was also shared that people who had been flooded last year were not doing much to protect themselves against future floods. Well, speaking personally, I still await any sensible response beyond 'look at the website' or 'do you want a sandbag' from my council or the Environment Agency as to what options I might engage.
So I am none too surprised that the proactive measures being taken by householders are not that great, especially whilst wondering if the authorities might get around to addressing the bigger picture (clear drains, etc) first.
In a sedate suburban avenue the reporter posed before a very extensively covered front lawn, upon which was perched a dirty great Merc 4x4.
'Hmnn', I thought. "Why would a drive/vehicle combo like that have been chosen? Ho-hum. Subtle. But there is a fair question to be asked as to why one needs such a thing in such a location. Another story'.
But no, the piece was then introduced as being an alliterative choice (I forget the precise words) between 'Your flora and your four by four'.
So far, so... obvious. It was a front lawn, there must have been a trowel handy to lay it on with.
But then a few moments later, it was email read-out time. Now I don't know if they were shy on things to share, had a rare desire for objective critique sharing, or thought it was a chance to make a bitchy, snarky point that they know best how to 'do' 'reporting', but the bouffant and blonde read out the suggestion from a viewer that 'Perhaps such driveways also play host to more modest vehicles, too'. I have to say it was calmly, fairly, and rather pertinetly put, too.
So, to much curling of lip, we get the 'witty' suggestion that it perhaps should have been 'Peugeots instead of Petunias'.
Another less than fine hour in the great 'we have no subjective agenda' that is the output of our public broadcaster. I am not sure if these front persons write their own stuff, but it's not coming across very well.
Yesterday I took the bouffant to task on a piece on ageism. To a studio guest who had just shared she had lost her job through turning 70 his flip first (I can alliterate too) comment was 'But you don't look it'. My question as to whether her dismissal would have been OK if she had looked it (physical comeliness not being a factor in BBC presenter selection, natch) was not replied to, oddly.
There are points to be made, but if this is the best way they can think to make them I doubt they will create many converts.
ADDENDUM:
Just watched a follow up. And on a more serious, and in one case helpful note this raised a few more tangible issues.
First up, and of relevance, was that many householders were opting for this because the council was introducing paid parking in the street. Well, D'Uh. Why paid? No option for residents permits? No wonder the residents are thinking of solutions closer to home.
Next, there is the very sensible consideration that if you do opt this way, go porous! This option needed much positive promotion.
I'll also bolt on some commentary about a related issue (as brought up)... flooding.
I fully accept that this trend will not help with run off. But the point was raised as to how this stacks up against paving over vast tracts of virgin countryside with new towns, however eco.
And it was also shared that people who had been flooded last year were not doing much to protect themselves against future floods. Well, speaking personally, I still await any sensible response beyond 'look at the website' or 'do you want a sandbag' from my council or the Environment Agency as to what options I might engage.
So I am none too surprised that the proactive measures being taken by householders are not that great, especially whilst wondering if the authorities might get around to addressing the bigger picture (clear drains, etc) first.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Rebuilding the stable door?
There was a piece on floods just now.
In it a pub was featured that had suffered £250k in damage, that had only just been put to rights.
Thing is, there was no mention of what preventative measures might have been put in place to help prevent a simple repetition of this process.
We have not yet been flooded here, and with luck will not be. But I am seriously looking at ways to allow for this possibility. Readers may recall an attempt I made at the time of the last floods to ask the authorities for guidance on how to avoid being a victim and claimant by simply protecting against it with suitable defences.
I still await any replies. Maybe compensation is deemed easier than cure?
In it a pub was featured that had suffered £250k in damage, that had only just been put to rights.
Thing is, there was no mention of what preventative measures might have been put in place to help prevent a simple repetition of this process.
We have not yet been flooded here, and with luck will not be. But I am seriously looking at ways to allow for this possibility. Readers may recall an attempt I made at the time of the last floods to ask the authorities for guidance on how to avoid being a victim and claimant by simply protecting against it with suitable defences.
I still await any replies. Maybe compensation is deemed easier than cure?
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Fancy a floating house?
The Dutch are renowned for planning ahead, its probably something to do with the fact that 20% of Holland actually lies below sea level and history has taught them many lessons in flood defence. This from the Indy reports on how they are now designing houses that are safe from flooding, they are designed to rise on anchored concrete poles to keep them safe and watertight.
There are probably quite a few lessons we could learn from them about building on flood plains and other areas prone to flooding, but I suspect that our own planning authorities will consider that they know better.
There are probably quite a few lessons we could learn from them about building on flood plains and other areas prone to flooding, but I suspect that our own planning authorities will consider that they know better.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Bird Brains
'Sustainable' flood defences call Odd that such a sensible notion should come from such a quarter, if not first, but to the exception of any other I have seen elsewhere.
By way of an update I still remain unanswered in my attempts to render my home safer form any future water-related issues.
By way of an update I still remain unanswered in my attempts to render my home safer form any future water-related issues.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Floods and Tears 3 - The wilderness years
Some may recall that the latest water-borne threats inspired me to get active on a bit of personal initiative by way of prevention rather than cure.
To date, I have had no further advice from the Environment Agency or Council, and am rather concerned that as the waters have abated, so has official interest. Until, of course the next 'unprecedented, unexpected' event.
For what it's worth, I have been sent a press release to Junkk.com that may allow for some action, and I will be making my views felt there*... since they have asked.
A website has been set up to allow the public to submit their comments at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/floodingreview
* Beyond professional interest, as my home was under threat I tried on a personal basis to get some information and advice from the Environment Agency and my council with a view to taking proactive steps by way of prevention, being better than cure.
Even with such a direct approach I have still heard nothing.
I think much more is needed to help those prepared not to be victims the next time, which there will be.
I fear as the waters have subsided, so has the interest of those surely tasked to think ahead as much as 'cope and hope'.
To date, I have had no further advice from the Environment Agency or Council, and am rather concerned that as the waters have abated, so has official interest. Until, of course the next 'unprecedented, unexpected' event.
For what it's worth, I have been sent a press release to Junkk.com that may allow for some action, and I will be making my views felt there*... since they have asked.
A website has been set up to allow the public to submit their comments at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/floodingreview
* Beyond professional interest, as my home was under threat I tried on a personal basis to get some information and advice from the Environment Agency and my council with a view to taking proactive steps by way of prevention, being better than cure.
Even with such a direct approach I have still heard nothing.
I think much more is needed to help those prepared not to be victims the next time, which there will be.
I fear as the waters have subsided, so has the interest of those surely tasked to think ahead as much as 'cope and hope'.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Floods & Tears 2 - Apres le deluge
It's still raining, and it's still wet. It's also Sunday, so the supps are out, along with the TV round-ups, and this is not quite going away.
I have just returned to my keyboard with the dulcet tones of Hazel Blears, Minister for something, ringing in my ear. I'm not sure, but I don't think she answered a single question, but told us all sorts of stuff we probably already knew about how awful it all was. And how she, personally, had been to see it. It was also interesting how she, personally was going to look at doing at lot, which begs the question as to what she had been doing the last decade.
And again, the thing to remember is that it was/is all unprecedented, and could not have been predicted. When is wasn't, and was.Hmmn. I guess if they say it enough we'll end up accepting it.
I've decided therefore to pop in another staging post of what's out there so far to see what we do know, and can do. Don't hold your breath.
Times - Flood chiefs get big cash bonuses - good start. I am really unclear as to why all our quango heads seem to be on nice little extra earners at all, much less like this. Especially when “The management of flood defences in recent years has been a sorry tale of budget cuts, failure to act on planning policies and inadequate precautionary measures"
Times - Century of neglect means the land can’t take it any more - "All this has happened despite the furrowed brows of the insurance industry and the protestations of the Environment Agency, which until recently was not even a statutory consultee in planning for flood plains." ps: I have Sea Change standing ready to read and review soon.
Times - After the flood, a surge of anger - And no wonder: “Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, might look at these and say, ‘Great! They didn’t flood, so you can build on flood plains!’ But that’s because they raised the level of the ground under the new houses - which meant that our road flooded instead.' That's the ways to a bonus these days, or a boosted career: shunt the problem downstream, preferably long enough to not be held to account by moving job.
'A recently leaked memo from the government’s spending review shows that before Gordon Brown became PM he was planning to cut millions from the EA’s flood defence budget later this year.'
There will be more.
Telegraph - 'I warned ministers of extreme flooding' - So... it couldn't be predicted then?
Telegraph - Why it is ministers who must carry the can - Quite: "Ministers were warned they should have reassessed the risks three years ago. My bet it was them, not the agency, that slept on their watch.'
Express - BROWN'S £1BILLION FLOOD PROFIT - That's an interesting stealth 'income generation scheme': spend 10 years doing sod all, blame God, 'unprecedented' events that have happened before and unpredictable situations which were warned about for whatever happens, pledge a pittance and then rake in the gravy mopping up. No wonder Dear Leader and his merry crew are happy to create ever more departments and bonus-bought-off, crony-headed quangos to keep the wheels of revenue spinning through ineptitude.
Guardian - Up to our necks in hype Plus quite a lot of precedented, predictable and hence avoidable flood water.
I have just returned to my keyboard with the dulcet tones of Hazel Blears, Minister for something, ringing in my ear. I'm not sure, but I don't think she answered a single question, but told us all sorts of stuff we probably already knew about how awful it all was. And how she, personally, had been to see it. It was also interesting how she, personally was going to look at doing at lot, which begs the question as to what she had been doing the last decade.
And again, the thing to remember is that it was/is all unprecedented, and could not have been predicted. When is wasn't, and was.Hmmn. I guess if they say it enough we'll end up accepting it.
I've decided therefore to pop in another staging post of what's out there so far to see what we do know, and can do. Don't hold your breath.
Times - Flood chiefs get big cash bonuses - good start. I am really unclear as to why all our quango heads seem to be on nice little extra earners at all, much less like this. Especially when “The management of flood defences in recent years has been a sorry tale of budget cuts, failure to act on planning policies and inadequate precautionary measures"
Times - Century of neglect means the land can’t take it any more - "All this has happened despite the furrowed brows of the insurance industry and the protestations of the Environment Agency, which until recently was not even a statutory consultee in planning for flood plains." ps: I have Sea Change standing ready to read and review soon.
Times - After the flood, a surge of anger - And no wonder: “Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, might look at these and say, ‘Great! They didn’t flood, so you can build on flood plains!’ But that’s because they raised the level of the ground under the new houses - which meant that our road flooded instead.' That's the ways to a bonus these days, or a boosted career: shunt the problem downstream, preferably long enough to not be held to account by moving job.
'A recently leaked memo from the government’s spending review shows that before Gordon Brown became PM he was planning to cut millions from the EA’s flood defence budget later this year.'
There will be more.
Telegraph - 'I warned ministers of extreme flooding' - So... it couldn't be predicted then?
Telegraph - Why it is ministers who must carry the can - Quite: "Ministers were warned they should have reassessed the risks three years ago. My bet it was them, not the agency, that slept on their watch.'
Express - BROWN'S £1BILLION FLOOD PROFIT - That's an interesting stealth 'income generation scheme': spend 10 years doing sod all, blame God, 'unprecedented' events that have happened before and unpredictable situations which were warned about for whatever happens, pledge a pittance and then rake in the gravy mopping up. No wonder Dear Leader and his merry crew are happy to create ever more departments and bonus-bought-off, crony-headed quangos to keep the wheels of revenue spinning through ineptitude.
Guardian - Up to our necks in hype Plus quite a lot of precedented, predictable and hence avoidable flood water.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Know People
This looks like a good thing for bad times: Turn to Google Maps for flood updates
As does this.
What does not, is this: '... a useful point to wonder whether information on flooding that is already collated by various arms of government should be made more freely available to members of the public. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that property site OnOneMap, which uses Google Maps as its engine, got into a battle over the flood data it was offering browsers. Because the mapping data showing flood risk is owned by the Environment Agency, they were forced to remove it.'
Just so's I get this straight...
There is public information, paid for by the public, that can be of help (or made to be) to the public, and it's ring-fenced 'not for the public's benefit' by quango turf defences?
As does this.
What does not, is this: '... a useful point to wonder whether information on flooding that is already collated by various arms of government should be made more freely available to members of the public. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that property site OnOneMap, which uses Google Maps as its engine, got into a battle over the flood data it was offering browsers. Because the mapping data showing flood risk is owned by the Environment Agency, they were forced to remove it.'
Just so's I get this straight...
There is public information, paid for by the public, that can be of help (or made to be) to the public, and it's ring-fenced 'not for the public's benefit' by quango turf defences?
Ask, and you will... er... um...
A bit more water-borne fun & games with Newsnight
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
32.78m AOD
That is the height, in metres, that the lowest corner of my house at damp course level is 'Above Ordnance Datum'.
I know this because a few years ago some chappies were at the end of the road doing hard hat/high-vis jackety-type things with levels, and I asked them to give me that measurement.
I figured it would come in handy one day.
Hopefully it still will. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure, so rather than mopping out the utility room and having a fight with the loss adjuster, I would like to try and make my house as flood proof as possible, against the chance that this 'one in a hundred year event' might happen again next month.
Thing is, I am not off to the best of starts.
The best the Environment Agency floodline could come up with was the offer of a sandbag. Now I am sure they are better than nothing, but I have a few grander plans in mind. Slotted posts with neoprene sleeves to accommodate tapered slats, for one. Quick to erect. Easy to store. With luck, using the best of Junkk.com. Already I have sealed the (now defunct) dryer outlet with a nifty sweet can lid that slid over a treat.
But to figure out what's for the best I need to know what height to make them. And this is proving an effort. I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone so far on what 'might' happen. Which makes planning tricky.
All I have managed so far is to get on a list that sends an email to tell me I'm about to be flooded if I'm in. And a text if I'm out. And as to the brook alongside that is copping the run-off from the new housing estate on the hillside farmland, that's not included as it is another department.
Spiffy.
ADDENDUM - You want some fun? Try getting a definition for Ordnance Datum, much less what it is in your vicinity.
The best I have, so far, is:
chart datum Set reference point on charts for water depth in relation to tides. On metric charts for which the UK Hydrographic Office is the charting authority, chart datum is a level as close as possible to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), the lowest predictable tide under average meteorological conditions (from Ministry of Defence, 1987). This is not the same as Ordnance Datum, the fixed reference point for heights and contours shown on Ordnance Survey maps, which is based on mean sea level (MSL) as recorded at Newlyn (Cornwall) over a seven-year period from 1915 to 1921.
ADDENDUM 2 -
Having signed up to them, I just had an automated mobile call and email to tell me to 'stand down'. So that seemed to work, at least.
Sadly this is not going to help me with the fact that the continued high levels seem to have opened a breech between the brook and my cellar such that the pumps are now working 24/7. I fear I need to get tanking. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££:(
Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy
I know this because a few years ago some chappies were at the end of the road doing hard hat/high-vis jackety-type things with levels, and I asked them to give me that measurement.
I figured it would come in handy one day.
Hopefully it still will. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure, so rather than mopping out the utility room and having a fight with the loss adjuster, I would like to try and make my house as flood proof as possible, against the chance that this 'one in a hundred year event' might happen again next month.
Thing is, I am not off to the best of starts.
The best the Environment Agency floodline could come up with was the offer of a sandbag. Now I am sure they are better than nothing, but I have a few grander plans in mind. Slotted posts with neoprene sleeves to accommodate tapered slats, for one. Quick to erect. Easy to store. With luck, using the best of Junkk.com. Already I have sealed the (now defunct) dryer outlet with a nifty sweet can lid that slid over a treat.
But to figure out what's for the best I need to know what height to make them. And this is proving an effort. I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone so far on what 'might' happen. Which makes planning tricky.
All I have managed so far is to get on a list that sends an email to tell me I'm about to be flooded if I'm in. And a text if I'm out. And as to the brook alongside that is copping the run-off from the new housing estate on the hillside farmland, that's not included as it is another department.
Spiffy.
ADDENDUM - You want some fun? Try getting a definition for Ordnance Datum, much less what it is in your vicinity.
The best I have, so far, is:
chart datum Set reference point on charts for water depth in relation to tides. On metric charts for which the UK Hydrographic Office is the charting authority, chart datum is a level as close as possible to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), the lowest predictable tide under average meteorological conditions (from Ministry of Defence, 1987). This is not the same as Ordnance Datum, the fixed reference point for heights and contours shown on Ordnance Survey maps, which is based on mean sea level (MSL) as recorded at Newlyn (Cornwall) over a seven-year period from 1915 to 1921.
ADDENDUM 2 -
Having signed up to them, I just had an automated mobile call and email to tell me to 'stand down'. So that seemed to work, at least.
Sadly this is not going to help me with the fact that the continued high levels seem to have opened a breech between the brook and my cellar such that the pumps are now working 24/7. I fear I need to get tanking. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££:(
Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy
I predict a riot
Oh, dear. This if this is the best we can do I'd advise buying bigger wellies - Newsnight Floods
Unpredicted power cuts. Something without precedent I am sure at the BBC. It must be climate change. Lessons must be learned. Debates will be had. But, for now, let's move on.
First up, let me just say how bang on - 'watching TV without electricity. LOL' - almost all the comments have been so far, and forgive me for rehashing any, but there is much to rake over.
'Without precedent'. So says Dear Leader and his gang. Well, is/was it, or not? Especially if, as advised, 1903 was the wettest on record and 1947 & 1956 were a tad damp, too. And what has happened 'was no different' to 1968 in the West Midlands or 1912 in East Anglia.
Which rather makes a mockery of 'Acts of God' along with 'No one could have predicted'.
Surely to [that same invoked entity] this was entirely predictable, and should have been anticipated. And as we are getting hit with climate change awareness communications (via PR and massively-funded ad campaigns of questionable value) daily, might we not suppose that in a joined up government a projection may have been made from such historical data, a few factors such as increased population, consequent building, drainage and run off bolted on, to arrive at the notion that, at some stage, it was going to happen again, and maybe even a bit worse?
I have never heard such woeful backsliding, and backside covering so far (with a prediction of more totally precedented examples to come).
If Mr. Brown's solution so far is to swim in and promise a bit more money to make up for what he was part of removing in the past, I'd say the only bounce from any location near water he'd see if he called an election was out! How long are we going to be treated to an erasing of any complicity in the last decade, when all those responsible for what is happening now were part of the obvious failures in policy and action (with all due, obligatory, praise to those at the sharp... er, wet... end of the public service delivery systems who actually have to mop up their bosses' foul-ups) that has brought us to this point?
And if... when this money arrives, forget the Environment Agency two Labour MPs so virulently trashed various for 'rubbish systems' on this very point (this would be the same Agency a Minister of Government subsequently has very confidence in? How disjointed is that!?), how can we trust this shambolic bunch to utilise any more cash any more effectively than they have already? We have the evidence of our own pruny toes to show what they are capable of at a strategic level. The only defensive systems I see deployed so far are career-covering words. As Baroness Young said: 'there is no accounting'. Quite.
I'm not quite sure how many Ministers of Mud (Ok, the environment) we deserve, but Mr. Phil 'No Point Trying' Woolas was an inspired choice of spokesperson to help us through this. 'Not the time for lessons learned', just as all around are trying to bail themselves out by rehashing this rather tired mantra enough times in the hope it will all soon pass over. And speaking of tired mantras, there is, apparently, 'a big debate to be had'. Well we're having it now matey, and the likes of you are looking pretty poor in the showing so far.
Was he really saying that as it was going to be really bad the lack of doing anything in some places was excusable. With a system that is claimed to be totally 'fluid' (excuse the pun) from one hour to the next, you don't even try? And big up to the commenter who noted he doesn't seem to have grasped the Thames Barrier's actual function. Funny if not tragic. It sure doesn't fill me with much confidence in the competence being brought to bear so far.
And Newsnight, why, oh why do you persist with the 'twofer' bookend debate style. Actually the flood victim lady was at least quite well-informed and confident, but for an issue this massive she's all we get to go head to head with a Minister backed by a bazillion assistants and briefings (not that it did him much good)?
And as a tax, local rate and licence fee payer with the River Wye looking to do the same thing one day, and wishing to prevent a lot more than I can cure or see excluded on insurance, why did we not get an answer to the question of DEFRA's Flood Resistance Grants? I would like, no... need... no... demand to know!
Along with why we are not spending money wisely on tangible preventative measures as opposed to p*ssing it all away on more and more quangos and ad campaigns to make 'us' aware on our carbon footprints. I'm pretty sure some were quite relieved that 4x4s and bottled water (last week was it that Newsnight jumped on that trivial bandwagon?) were still available at the moment, and a bit more concerned about the much bigger carbon footprint pictures that might be responsible for such massive natural phenomena.
So let's not just look to the skies to explain what has happened on the ground here. I'm afraid what I am seeing and hearing is indeed caused by man (PC-alert: men and women), but mostly all living in one small village in Westminster.
I was more than interested in the Climate Change discussion (no so much a debate as they were really agreeing with each other) between Meteorologist of 30 years' experience Philip Eden, and environmentalist of, er, no obvious fixed qualification, George Monbiot. An interesting pairing.
I'd have loved to have seen Mr. Eden across the table from Mr. Brown or Woolas to hear them deal with the fact that there was indeed plenty of precedent, and all this could be and indeed has been predicted. Maybe even mitigated?
In fact this should be the end of the story, along with their over-spun careers. But no, one can say almost anything outright wrong and get away with it pretty easily these days.
Especially in the current media climate where there is an attention span... of oh, that's all we have time for. Meanwhile, in other news... I for one would like to return to the hundreds more concerned with Jeremy's tie. Not.
I'll leave the final words to the only qualified scientist I heard all night: 'If this is what happens within our current limits of experience, what is going to happen in the future?' I'm just not sure if he was talking about the weather, or the guys tasked to help us address its consequences.
Unpredicted power cuts. Something without precedent I am sure at the BBC. It must be climate change. Lessons must be learned. Debates will be had. But, for now, let's move on.
First up, let me just say how bang on - 'watching TV without electricity. LOL' - almost all the comments have been so far, and forgive me for rehashing any, but there is much to rake over.
'Without precedent'. So says Dear Leader and his gang. Well, is/was it, or not? Especially if, as advised, 1903 was the wettest on record and 1947 & 1956 were a tad damp, too. And what has happened 'was no different' to 1968 in the West Midlands or 1912 in East Anglia.
Which rather makes a mockery of 'Acts of God' along with 'No one could have predicted'.
Surely to [that same invoked entity] this was entirely predictable, and should have been anticipated. And as we are getting hit with climate change awareness communications (via PR and massively-funded ad campaigns of questionable value) daily, might we not suppose that in a joined up government a projection may have been made from such historical data, a few factors such as increased population, consequent building, drainage and run off bolted on, to arrive at the notion that, at some stage, it was going to happen again, and maybe even a bit worse?
I have never heard such woeful backsliding, and backside covering so far (with a prediction of more totally precedented examples to come).
If Mr. Brown's solution so far is to swim in and promise a bit more money to make up for what he was part of removing in the past, I'd say the only bounce from any location near water he'd see if he called an election was out! How long are we going to be treated to an erasing of any complicity in the last decade, when all those responsible for what is happening now were part of the obvious failures in policy and action (with all due, obligatory, praise to those at the sharp... er, wet... end of the public service delivery systems who actually have to mop up their bosses' foul-ups) that has brought us to this point?
And if... when this money arrives, forget the Environment Agency two Labour MPs so virulently trashed various for 'rubbish systems' on this very point (this would be the same Agency a Minister of Government subsequently has very confidence in? How disjointed is that!?), how can we trust this shambolic bunch to utilise any more cash any more effectively than they have already? We have the evidence of our own pruny toes to show what they are capable of at a strategic level. The only defensive systems I see deployed so far are career-covering words. As Baroness Young said: 'there is no accounting'. Quite.
I'm not quite sure how many Ministers of Mud (Ok, the environment) we deserve, but Mr. Phil 'No Point Trying' Woolas was an inspired choice of spokesperson to help us through this. 'Not the time for lessons learned', just as all around are trying to bail themselves out by rehashing this rather tired mantra enough times in the hope it will all soon pass over. And speaking of tired mantras, there is, apparently, 'a big debate to be had'. Well we're having it now matey, and the likes of you are looking pretty poor in the showing so far.
Was he really saying that as it was going to be really bad the lack of doing anything in some places was excusable. With a system that is claimed to be totally 'fluid' (excuse the pun) from one hour to the next, you don't even try? And big up to the commenter who noted he doesn't seem to have grasped the Thames Barrier's actual function. Funny if not tragic. It sure doesn't fill me with much confidence in the competence being brought to bear so far.
And Newsnight, why, oh why do you persist with the 'twofer' bookend debate style. Actually the flood victim lady was at least quite well-informed and confident, but for an issue this massive she's all we get to go head to head with a Minister backed by a bazillion assistants and briefings (not that it did him much good)?
And as a tax, local rate and licence fee payer with the River Wye looking to do the same thing one day, and wishing to prevent a lot more than I can cure or see excluded on insurance, why did we not get an answer to the question of DEFRA's Flood Resistance Grants? I would like, no... need... no... demand to know!
Along with why we are not spending money wisely on tangible preventative measures as opposed to p*ssing it all away on more and more quangos and ad campaigns to make 'us' aware on our carbon footprints. I'm pretty sure some were quite relieved that 4x4s and bottled water (last week was it that Newsnight jumped on that trivial bandwagon?) were still available at the moment, and a bit more concerned about the much bigger carbon footprint pictures that might be responsible for such massive natural phenomena.
So let's not just look to the skies to explain what has happened on the ground here. I'm afraid what I am seeing and hearing is indeed caused by man (PC-alert: men and women), but mostly all living in one small village in Westminster.
I was more than interested in the Climate Change discussion (no so much a debate as they were really agreeing with each other) between Meteorologist of 30 years' experience Philip Eden, and environmentalist of, er, no obvious fixed qualification, George Monbiot. An interesting pairing.
I'd have loved to have seen Mr. Eden across the table from Mr. Brown or Woolas to hear them deal with the fact that there was indeed plenty of precedent, and all this could be and indeed has been predicted. Maybe even mitigated?
In fact this should be the end of the story, along with their over-spun careers. But no, one can say almost anything outright wrong and get away with it pretty easily these days.
Especially in the current media climate where there is an attention span... of oh, that's all we have time for. Meanwhile, in other news... I for one would like to return to the hundreds more concerned with Jeremy's tie. Not.
I'll leave the final words to the only qualified scientist I heard all night: 'If this is what happens within our current limits of experience, what is going to happen in the future?' I'm just not sure if he was talking about the weather, or the guys tasked to help us address its consequences.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Boogey me... er... atmospheric phenomena
Get used to 'em: Floods force many to face climate change reality
While there is a (pretty valid) school of thought that 'we' need a pretty big 'something' by way of a climatic kick in the pants, I do wonder if pinning everything on 'climate change' isn't going to get to be a common, and convenient, catch-all, and hence lose its effect PDQ.
I don't know for sure, but at the moment I'm guessing that these floods could equally force a few to face the facts of overpopulation, woeful political priorities, disastrous land management practices and even that most awful of all: stuff happens.
Sitting in my room on July trying to figure which water borne menace will get me first - the river coming up or the rain down/sideways - it's hard not to get the feeling that this is all a tad 'odd'. But then it is not, it seems, without historical precedent. Any hence if nature is just doing its funky thing, then all the billion £ claims are more a matter of how many of us there are now, where we were told/allowed to stick our homes, and fill 'em with expensive kit for insurers to try and get out of paying for.
So when I see such as this: "...mechanism may well explain an observed rise in flash floods in Europe over the last decade.." I worry a bit. Especially with the all too wonderful 'may'.
At least this is definitive: '... parts of China have seen the heaviest rainfall since records began,' though I have expressed caution on 'toll' figures bearing in mind our race's spread over the planet. The Boxing Day tsunami killed a lot more than Krakatoa because in those days Swedish tourists were not skinny-bathing in Phuket, and half of India hadn't cut down the mangrove swaps to get a sea view.
I'm no statistician, so I'll go with this: 'This year's UK floods were an event statistical models say should happen once only every 30 to 50 years, Mehlhorn says: the floods in 2000 were a 25-30 years event. Two such events in only seven years are not statistically impossible, but they are unlikely. Other countries have seen similar increases in such disasters.' But again I think it too easy to just say that it's down to what is dropping from the skies and not a lot to do with what it is all dropping on.
And, frankly, one (while critical) is in the future, while the other is now. So while both need addressing, let it be for the right reasons, and not to get a lot of pretty key questions off a load of folk who should be tasked to explain themselves. Because if we don't have the right folk, with the right abilities, and the right motivations in charge of the future... we're screwed.
And that IS scary.
While there is a (pretty valid) school of thought that 'we' need a pretty big 'something' by way of a climatic kick in the pants, I do wonder if pinning everything on 'climate change' isn't going to get to be a common, and convenient, catch-all, and hence lose its effect PDQ.
I don't know for sure, but at the moment I'm guessing that these floods could equally force a few to face the facts of overpopulation, woeful political priorities, disastrous land management practices and even that most awful of all: stuff happens.
Sitting in my room on July trying to figure which water borne menace will get me first - the river coming up or the rain down/sideways - it's hard not to get the feeling that this is all a tad 'odd'. But then it is not, it seems, without historical precedent. Any hence if nature is just doing its funky thing, then all the billion £ claims are more a matter of how many of us there are now, where we were told/allowed to stick our homes, and fill 'em with expensive kit for insurers to try and get out of paying for.
So when I see such as this: "...mechanism may well explain an observed rise in flash floods in Europe over the last decade.." I worry a bit. Especially with the all too wonderful 'may'.
At least this is definitive: '... parts of China have seen the heaviest rainfall since records began,' though I have expressed caution on 'toll' figures bearing in mind our race's spread over the planet. The Boxing Day tsunami killed a lot more than Krakatoa because in those days Swedish tourists were not skinny-bathing in Phuket, and half of India hadn't cut down the mangrove swaps to get a sea view.
I'm no statistician, so I'll go with this: 'This year's UK floods were an event statistical models say should happen once only every 30 to 50 years, Mehlhorn says: the floods in 2000 were a 25-30 years event. Two such events in only seven years are not statistically impossible, but they are unlikely. Other countries have seen similar increases in such disasters.' But again I think it too easy to just say that it's down to what is dropping from the skies and not a lot to do with what it is all dropping on.
And, frankly, one (while critical) is in the future, while the other is now. So while both need addressing, let it be for the right reasons, and not to get a lot of pretty key questions off a load of folk who should be tasked to explain themselves. Because if we don't have the right folk, with the right abilities, and the right motivations in charge of the future... we're screwed.
And that IS scary.
Floods and tears
I think this whole deal deserves a dedicated page. Let's start off with this from the Green Party:
Greens condemn government response to flooding
FLOODING CHAOS IS JUST A TASTER OF WHAT IS TO COME
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today condemned the
government's management of floods in the UK:
"The chaos caused by flooding over the last few weeks is just a tiny
taster of what climate change will mean in the future. Climate
change will lead to more extreme weather rather than simply warming
Britain.
"It's as if Evesham has been hit by Hurrican Katrina and Gordon Brown
is showing all the signs of leadership of his climate change denying
ally George Bush
"Government failure to prepare for the flooding is matched by
government failure to tackle the causes of climate change. On the
one hand the government is encouraging the building of new houses on
flood plains, on the other it is expanding Heathrow and our motorway
network.
"We need to cut CO2 by 90 per cent in the next few decades.
"At present Britain is neither cutting greenhouse gases nor
prepaparing to deal with the consequences of climate change. It is
like a Doctor would will neither prevent nor attempt to cure an illness.
"We must stop building on flood plains, invest in flood protection
but above all, cut back on the expansion of roads, airports and new
fossil fuel power stations.
Hard to argue with most of that. Written in a hurry, looks like!
More to come, I'm sure.
Reuters - Thousands without water after floods in England
Indy - A 21st century catastrophe - '...a disaster caused by 21st-century weather. This weather is different from anything that has gone before.' I don't know, so I merely ask: is this the case? I merely note the meteorologist's opinion on Newsnight in an associated blog post. The rest is worth reading though, but I must confess to being confused now.
Indy - Ministers under fire as experts warn of worse to come - And when it does, I am sure it will be unpredicted... again. How is that we can't even get the financial numbers straight?
Indy - Get used to floods - actually quite rational
Guardian - Ministers warned three years ago over flood defence failings - All together now, 'Oh no we weren't!'. "Oh yes you were!" It's a bad pantomime.
Guardian - Going under - some explanations
BBC - Floods: At-a-glance - If your feet are wet it's too late
BBC - Claims over floods to 'top £2bn' - And I think the wrong folk end up paying
BBC - Humans 'affect global rainfall' - I'm pretty sure we affect a lot more than that!
Indy - Amid this latest apocalypse, the prophets of doom are all peddling their own agendas - But I'm guessing most will have no blooming clue what they are on about if this is a sample.
Indy - Drought, growth and a changing climate
Indy Letters - Some interesting views
Times - Shocking news: Britain’s a wet country - 65 posts! 66 now:
It's a pity this has become an is/isn't climate change issue.
But then that's probably fine by those in power and heading up various quangos who have been saying that it's all 'unprecedented' when it isn't, and 'couldn't be predicted' when it was.
So while this diversionary argument - though a key one, globally - rages, those who should be held to account for why the water that fell (for whatever reason) ended up in a suburban semi's living room. And why my insurance rates go up to compensate.
It's not just the planet that ends up paying for such ineptitude.
ADDENDUM - actually it's an archive I just got round to:
Times - Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge - I'm guessing not, now. A fun read, this way round.
Times - If this is a national disaster, I’m a tomato
I suppose it's open to a semantic debate as to how bad it needs to get before we hit 'disaster' as an acceptable term, but as the discussion is what one sees in the media I was just looking at your own paper from earlier this month: Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge And then I was trying to reconcile this with 'The Government has proved itself calmly competent. ... the pragmatic, unhysterical approach of the new Prime Minister has suited the country well. No soundbites; no grimaces; no posturing.' as the words from this same person and his calmly competent acolytes are still ringing in my ears: 'This is unprecedented... there was no way to predict it'. When, of course, it isn't and it wasn't'.
Remind me, and those currently not in theri comfy sitting room, is a tomato a over-ripe fruit or a tastless vegetable?
The Ecologist - High Tide
You're quite right. 'We' do tend to be moving towards a blame culture, don't we?
But then again, I think that refers to the trend of not holding ourselves accountable for things we pretty much do to, or bring upon ourselves.
There are still quite a few instances where 'we' are required to play ball and/or pay a bunch of folk an awful lot of money to make things run smoothly and safely.
So when something is immediately pointed anywhere but where it should be by a cabinet of Chicken Littles and their chattering class supporters, especially solely skywards, as 'an Act of God (well, that plus anthrowhatsit climate change)' that 'is without precedent (not according to the meteorologist with 30 years' experience I saw on Newsnight) ' and 'could not have been predicted (not according to the front page I read in the Guardian)' I'm afraid I do start to wonder who is doing what for the money, and whether they are doing it effectively or even competently.
Especially when the water I am more worried about is not coming up from the river but down from paved over farmland or drainage systems that cannot cope through poor planing or maintenance.
Of course 'we' are not in control. Thanks to our ever-increasing spread across this planet there is a ton of stuff, which yes, does happen, and there will doubtless be tons more. But we try and prepare, mitigate and, if all else fails, cope.
If those tasked to do it screw up, and then try and blame the boogey man, I'm sorry, that's not finger pointing, asking why is just an absolutely necessary demand for accountability.
And to try and redirect the appropriate questions from some very key areas and people means that history, and nature, will just repeat itself. Which will not serve future generations very well.
And yes, weren't the fireman super? But might it not be better to keep them for the fires and get in place guys who might do their jobs well enough that these noble souls are not called out to pluck grannies from floodplain-located housing estates it would be 'unrealistic' not to build?
Just a thought.
Greens condemn government response to flooding
FLOODING CHAOS IS JUST A TASTER OF WHAT IS TO COME
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today condemned the
government's management of floods in the UK:
"The chaos caused by flooding over the last few weeks is just a tiny
taster of what climate change will mean in the future. Climate
change will lead to more extreme weather rather than simply warming
Britain.
"It's as if Evesham has been hit by Hurrican Katrina and Gordon Brown
is showing all the signs of leadership of his climate change denying
ally George Bush
"Government failure to prepare for the flooding is matched by
government failure to tackle the causes of climate change. On the
one hand the government is encouraging the building of new houses on
flood plains, on the other it is expanding Heathrow and our motorway
network.
"We need to cut CO2 by 90 per cent in the next few decades.
"At present Britain is neither cutting greenhouse gases nor
prepaparing to deal with the consequences of climate change. It is
like a Doctor would will neither prevent nor attempt to cure an illness.
"We must stop building on flood plains, invest in flood protection
but above all, cut back on the expansion of roads, airports and new
fossil fuel power stations.
Hard to argue with most of that. Written in a hurry, looks like!
More to come, I'm sure.
Reuters - Thousands without water after floods in England
Indy - A 21st century catastrophe - '...a disaster caused by 21st-century weather. This weather is different from anything that has gone before.' I don't know, so I merely ask: is this the case? I merely note the meteorologist's opinion on Newsnight in an associated blog post. The rest is worth reading though, but I must confess to being confused now.
Indy - Ministers under fire as experts warn of worse to come - And when it does, I am sure it will be unpredicted... again. How is that we can't even get the financial numbers straight?
Indy - Get used to floods - actually quite rational
Guardian - Ministers warned three years ago over flood defence failings - All together now, 'Oh no we weren't!'. "Oh yes you were!" It's a bad pantomime.
Guardian - Going under - some explanations
BBC - Floods: At-a-glance - If your feet are wet it's too late
BBC - Claims over floods to 'top £2bn' - And I think the wrong folk end up paying
BBC - Humans 'affect global rainfall' - I'm pretty sure we affect a lot more than that!
Indy - Amid this latest apocalypse, the prophets of doom are all peddling their own agendas - But I'm guessing most will have no blooming clue what they are on about if this is a sample.
Indy - Drought, growth and a changing climate
Indy Letters - Some interesting views
Times - Shocking news: Britain’s a wet country - 65 posts! 66 now:
It's a pity this has become an is/isn't climate change issue.
But then that's probably fine by those in power and heading up various quangos who have been saying that it's all 'unprecedented' when it isn't, and 'couldn't be predicted' when it was.
So while this diversionary argument - though a key one, globally - rages, those who should be held to account for why the water that fell (for whatever reason) ended up in a suburban semi's living room. And why my insurance rates go up to compensate.
It's not just the planet that ends up paying for such ineptitude.
ADDENDUM - actually it's an archive I just got round to:
Times - Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge - I'm guessing not, now. A fun read, this way round.
Times - If this is a national disaster, I’m a tomato
I suppose it's open to a semantic debate as to how bad it needs to get before we hit 'disaster' as an acceptable term, but as the discussion is what one sees in the media I was just looking at your own paper from earlier this month: Labour plans flood defence cuts as Britain flounders in the deluge And then I was trying to reconcile this with 'The Government has proved itself calmly competent. ... the pragmatic, unhysterical approach of the new Prime Minister has suited the country well. No soundbites; no grimaces; no posturing.' as the words from this same person and his calmly competent acolytes are still ringing in my ears: 'This is unprecedented... there was no way to predict it'. When, of course, it isn't and it wasn't'.
Remind me, and those currently not in theri comfy sitting room, is a tomato a over-ripe fruit or a tastless vegetable?
The Ecologist - High Tide
You're quite right. 'We' do tend to be moving towards a blame culture, don't we?
But then again, I think that refers to the trend of not holding ourselves accountable for things we pretty much do to, or bring upon ourselves.
There are still quite a few instances where 'we' are required to play ball and/or pay a bunch of folk an awful lot of money to make things run smoothly and safely.
So when something is immediately pointed anywhere but where it should be by a cabinet of Chicken Littles and their chattering class supporters, especially solely skywards, as 'an Act of God (well, that plus anthrowhatsit climate change)' that 'is without precedent (not according to the meteorologist with 30 years' experience I saw on Newsnight) ' and 'could not have been predicted (not according to the front page I read in the Guardian)' I'm afraid I do start to wonder who is doing what for the money, and whether they are doing it effectively or even competently.
Especially when the water I am more worried about is not coming up from the river but down from paved over farmland or drainage systems that cannot cope through poor planing or maintenance.
Of course 'we' are not in control. Thanks to our ever-increasing spread across this planet there is a ton of stuff, which yes, does happen, and there will doubtless be tons more. But we try and prepare, mitigate and, if all else fails, cope.
If those tasked to do it screw up, and then try and blame the boogey man, I'm sorry, that's not finger pointing, asking why is just an absolutely necessary demand for accountability.
And to try and redirect the appropriate questions from some very key areas and people means that history, and nature, will just repeat itself. Which will not serve future generations very well.
And yes, weren't the fireman super? But might it not be better to keep them for the fires and get in place guys who might do their jobs well enough that these noble souls are not called out to pluck grannies from floodplain-located housing estates it would be 'unrealistic' not to build?
Just a thought.
What a shower
There is a certain irony (well, or worse) to a bunch of eco-types like me converging on a place using various carbon-emitting methods to get there.
Or not.
I am just back from almost getting to Cheltenham for another climate gathering. But it was not to be. Maybe just as well, as I am not too sure how my own home will fare as things seem to be deteriorating. I say seems, as I have to suggest that one thing that really has got to me is how poor the information is, or at least how it is disseminated.
I checked the Environment, Highways Agencies and the AA to see about making my trip, and from what I could gather it was fine. It may be the information was out there, but I sure as heck couldn't access it easily.
I only found out about my trip's impossibility when I passed from BBC Hereford and Worcester to BBC Gloucester on the radio. For heaven's sake, guys, people do travel between counties. How about coverage slightly beyond your little sphere?
Ditto flooding. Why can't one just key in a postcode and get the latest info. I tried it on the EA site but really got no joy. All I could get was an archive map of the flood plain for my area (pictured). Thing is, if the water gets to some places indicated we're all in trouble. It covers a hill that probably rises 50m. Time to get on to the EA and my insurers to point out that even a metre matters to know if you are going to be underwater, and what the costs of protection are/should be. I certainly plan some defences as this is all not going to improve.
By way of a few thoughts at the end, I noted with interest as I headed back several acres covered with polytunnels. I'm guessing these don't allow the water to soak away?
Also the BBC proudly showing us where I just wasn't, Tewksbury... from a helicopter. Just to show us the water treatment plant. Solar-powered whirlybird was it, guys?
And speaking of the water treatment planet, I am guessing those who reckon bottled water is the eco-antichrist might either by saying a) 'told you so' or b) 'give me all the Evians on the shelf, quick' depending on where they are sitting. A bit like 4x4s, you need to be careful what you wish for. I know these things are not optimal in comparison to other options, but are they really worthy of all the efforts to ban them in comparison to other major climate change causes, and is it worth losing them as options as they do seem to offer certain advantages to cope with some situations?
Still, as a cheery Beeb has shared, at least the berry crops are doing well. I wonder if they are grown under plastic?
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Vague on solving problems. Vague of the causes of problems.
A committee of MPs not only thought the Iran 'M/marine' affair was mishandled, but seemed unable to locate anyone who was to blame for decisions made all the way up the chain.
This is what I switched on Breakfast TV to find out. No one is to blame any more. And it's 'wholly unsatisfactory'. That'll have all of 'em quaking.
Moving on to a more immediate, and topical issue. Flooding.
Baroness Young of the Environment Agency is wheeled on to explain why a bunch of folk are sitting on their roofs, either not protected or not assisted in good order.
What struck me first was the reasons. There have not been floods like this 'in 200 years'. And a lot of it was down to significant 'run'off'. Hmmn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not had a bunch of officials banging on for a wee while about climate change, with vast amounts of time and energy being 'invested' in campaigns to get us to 'think' about such huge issues as plastic bags. So they were/are aware that some stinky stuff was/is going to happen. Yet the main thing I seem to be hearing is that it is all 'unprecedented'.
Well, at least since 200 years ago, when climate change was what happened four times a year and you just made sure the crops got rotated properly to cope. As opposed to sticking a supermarket carpark on top of them. You'd think they'd have figured it was not only going to happen again, but be even more serious - As Mr. Brown has said: '[they] have to learn lessons for the future'. Like so much else, it all is such a big surprise after the last 10 years being the number 2 in cabinet, I suppose.
Today, I shall be mostly figuring out how to protect my home from the possibility that no one will be responsible/accountable for the fact that the Wye (or more likely run-off from the hills surrounding it) may do what it has done over the millenia (note to EA and my insurers: despite your warning letter, my house has never been flooded before).
You know what? Instead of flood defences, I think we need another really useful, award-winning campaign. All supported by a bloated system of over-staffed, contradictory agencies to ensure that whatever happens (or doesn't), it's no one's fault.
I just watched Peter Sissons take apart a Labour apologist on her attempt to excuse it all away as an 'Act of God'.... well, done!
As I close, our new Environment Minister is due to explain. Can't wait.
ADDENDUM -
Watching now. He doesn't accept that anything was bungled. Asked a direct question, he didn't answer as to who was in charge. A trend at play here. But we get a nonsense appeal to big up the 'moppers uppers' in the emergency services. These are guys at the sharp end. Maybe the guys at the fat end need to explain why they, and those they were deployed to aid, were put at risk in the first place. And fudges on whether the £15M cut from the budget last year was from capital or elsewhere is just a weasel. Note that amount... to cope with flooding infrastructure for the UK. And weight it against the budget for several different 'awareness ' campaigns'.
On the point of building on flood plains, it seems that now they will take it into account. Only... now?
Telegraph - Flood failures: Ministers 'mishandled crisis'
Telegraph - Prevention, not cure
BBC - One family's M5 nightmare - 4x4's.... cause or coping tool? Can a Prius float?
BBC - Benn defends response to flooding - Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has defended the government's response to the floods, although he accepted there were "lessons to be learned" - As well??? Is it a government of parrots?
Times - Families to foot bill for £2.5bn floods - Well, you wouldn't expect the clowns repsonsible to, would you?
This is what I switched on Breakfast TV to find out. No one is to blame any more. And it's 'wholly unsatisfactory'. That'll have all of 'em quaking.
Moving on to a more immediate, and topical issue. Flooding.
Baroness Young of the Environment Agency is wheeled on to explain why a bunch of folk are sitting on their roofs, either not protected or not assisted in good order.
What struck me first was the reasons. There have not been floods like this 'in 200 years'. And a lot of it was down to significant 'run'off'. Hmmn.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we not had a bunch of officials banging on for a wee while about climate change, with vast amounts of time and energy being 'invested' in campaigns to get us to 'think' about such huge issues as plastic bags. So they were/are aware that some stinky stuff was/is going to happen. Yet the main thing I seem to be hearing is that it is all 'unprecedented'.
Well, at least since 200 years ago, when climate change was what happened four times a year and you just made sure the crops got rotated properly to cope. As opposed to sticking a supermarket carpark on top of them. You'd think they'd have figured it was not only going to happen again, but be even more serious - As Mr. Brown has said: '[they] have to learn lessons for the future'. Like so much else, it all is such a big surprise after the last 10 years being the number 2 in cabinet, I suppose.
Today, I shall be mostly figuring out how to protect my home from the possibility that no one will be responsible/accountable for the fact that the Wye (or more likely run-off from the hills surrounding it) may do what it has done over the millenia (note to EA and my insurers: despite your warning letter, my house has never been flooded before).
You know what? Instead of flood defences, I think we need another really useful, award-winning campaign. All supported by a bloated system of over-staffed, contradictory agencies to ensure that whatever happens (or doesn't), it's no one's fault.
I just watched Peter Sissons take apart a Labour apologist on her attempt to excuse it all away as an 'Act of God'.... well, done!
As I close, our new Environment Minister is due to explain. Can't wait.
ADDENDUM -
Watching now. He doesn't accept that anything was bungled. Asked a direct question, he didn't answer as to who was in charge. A trend at play here. But we get a nonsense appeal to big up the 'moppers uppers' in the emergency services. These are guys at the sharp end. Maybe the guys at the fat end need to explain why they, and those they were deployed to aid, were put at risk in the first place. And fudges on whether the £15M cut from the budget last year was from capital or elsewhere is just a weasel. Note that amount... to cope with flooding infrastructure for the UK. And weight it against the budget for several different 'awareness ' campaigns'.
On the point of building on flood plains, it seems that now they will take it into account. Only... now?
Telegraph - Flood failures: Ministers 'mishandled crisis'
Telegraph - Prevention, not cure
BBC - One family's M5 nightmare - 4x4's.... cause or coping tool? Can a Prius float?
BBC - Benn defends response to flooding - Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has defended the government's response to the floods, although he accepted there were "lessons to be learned" - As well??? Is it a government of parrots?
Times - Families to foot bill for £2.5bn floods - Well, you wouldn't expect the clowns repsonsible to, would you?
Thursday, July 05, 2007
When it pours, who reigns?
Newsnight has a piece tonight on floods. I thought I'd pre-empt a tad, based on a key comment in their blurb.
'...finding that it's difficult to pin down who out of the agencies and local authorities on the ground is really in charge. '
So the money pours (sorry) in, but no one in government or quango who gets paid (handsomely, to retirement and beyond) to spend it like water (bit of a theme here) can even be identified, much less held to account.
Sums up the way are 'governed' these days pretty well, I'd say.
'...finding that it's difficult to pin down who out of the agencies and local authorities on the ground is really in charge. '
So the money pours (sorry) in, but no one in government or quango who gets paid (handsomely, to retirement and beyond) to spend it like water (bit of a theme here) can even be identified, much less held to account.
Sums up the way are 'governed' these days pretty well, I'd say.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Floods of neglect?
I'm not even going to comment on this other than to recommend reading the article, and perhaps the first 12 or 15 response comments. Talk about lighting the blue touchpaper!
Taken from The Guardian CIF, this just shows how far apart peoples' views can get when stirred up just a tad.
There's a slightly more measured article on the Channel 4 website that's also worth a viewing.
I'll just wade back across to the office now .................
Taken from The Guardian CIF, this just shows how far apart peoples' views can get when stirred up just a tad.
There's a slightly more measured article on the Channel 4 website that's also worth a viewing.
I'll just wade back across to the office now .................
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Cause and effect... s
By virtue of living right next to it, having watched the flooding on TV I was expecting the Wye River to soon be joining me in the lounge.
Strangely, nothing happened, he says, firmly touching wood.
But there are some pretty nasty things going down, and I have been interested in the coverage so far. Especially on Breakfast TV, with the boss lady of the Environment Agency on hand to offer the kind of advice that is great in theory, but perhaps a little less easy to put into practice.
I also caught a few 'never seen befores' flying about as to the level of the, well, levels.
Now, at risk of being labelled a 'big oil-funded denier' BOFDi, I had cause to ponder this.
As one who thinks there may be something to all this (and hence merit in appropriate mitigations), I nonetheless do concern myself at what gets laid at whose door, opening up which Pandora's Box first to put things right.
My main area of kinked eyebrow is how much is down to new and unimproved weather conditions caused by man-made climate change (with all sorts of carbon trading initiatives just waiting to be brought to bear as a consequence, with measurability and accountability on the never-never), and how much to pretty dire decisions on the ground; which can, and should, be made accountable quicksmart.
There are a lot more of us, living on a lot more land, concreting it over, requiring resources from it and pushing gunk back out. To what extent are these demands, and the political 'quick fixes' ('Eh up, let's pop 500 registered voters on that flood plain, lad') to accommodate these responsible for these floods, and how much to the heavens that have opened to cause this issue?
Both are serious, and both need addressing. But I would just like to make sure those Chicken Littles who are responsible for the more immediate, short term and more correctable causes (if, as I suspect, they may exist) do not get a free pass by shunting everyone's attention solely to a falling sky.
Indy - Letters: Flooding - Looks like I am not alone
Strangely, nothing happened, he says, firmly touching wood.
But there are some pretty nasty things going down, and I have been interested in the coverage so far. Especially on Breakfast TV, with the boss lady of the Environment Agency on hand to offer the kind of advice that is great in theory, but perhaps a little less easy to put into practice.
I also caught a few 'never seen befores' flying about as to the level of the, well, levels.
Now, at risk of being labelled a 'big oil-funded denier' BOFDi, I had cause to ponder this.
As one who thinks there may be something to all this (and hence merit in appropriate mitigations), I nonetheless do concern myself at what gets laid at whose door, opening up which Pandora's Box first to put things right.
My main area of kinked eyebrow is how much is down to new and unimproved weather conditions caused by man-made climate change (with all sorts of carbon trading initiatives just waiting to be brought to bear as a consequence, with measurability and accountability on the never-never), and how much to pretty dire decisions on the ground; which can, and should, be made accountable quicksmart.
There are a lot more of us, living on a lot more land, concreting it over, requiring resources from it and pushing gunk back out. To what extent are these demands, and the political 'quick fixes' ('Eh up, let's pop 500 registered voters on that flood plain, lad') to accommodate these responsible for these floods, and how much to the heavens that have opened to cause this issue?
Both are serious, and both need addressing. But I would just like to make sure those Chicken Littles who are responsible for the more immediate, short term and more correctable causes (if, as I suspect, they may exist) do not get a free pass by shunting everyone's attention solely to a falling sky.
Indy - Letters: Flooding - Looks like I am not alone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)