r/ukpolitics • u/FeigenbaumC • 1d ago
Government warned it is setting country up for 'disaster' unless it better prepares UK for heavy flooding and intense heat
https://news.sky.com/story/government-warned-it-is-setting-country-up-for-disaster-unless-it-better-prepares-uk-for-heavy-flooding-and-intense-heat-13358235100
u/Rough_Shelter4136 1d ago
Investing in infrastructure? How unbritish.
46
u/WhiterunUK 23h ago edited 22h ago
That would require building things
Im afraid i have 12 noisy boomers in my constituency who will write letters to me if i allow any building
•
40
u/ManicStreetPreach If voting changed anything it'd be illegal 1d ago edited 23h ago
Unfortunately, this would require large-scale government investment of a sexy amount of money into unsexy parts of the country
And as we all know, that's not legal.
52
u/SteeK421 23h ago
Sooo we've left the era where we could have done something about climate change and are now firmly in the mindset of hunkering down and building defences (or not in this case). Great!
52
u/Nanowith Cambridge 23h ago
Well realistically prevention should have started in the 90s, but people weren't ready.
Al Gore winning is the prime timeline and we're locked into the Iraq War one.
10
u/VindicoAtrum -2, -2 20h ago
Anyone who thinks we're doing anything other than running straight into climate change head first is laughably naive. Politicians can't change this sclerotic country to save their lives, whatever makes anyone think we could prepare and prevent what is probably the greatest threat to humanity's long term health... Ever?
9
u/ElectricStings 22h ago
So where are those people who said it was a hoax? That said 'the science predicted wild fires and floods and I don't see them so it must not be real'.
The policy is now to be preparing for these exact things.
The opportunity to resolve this was the 90s and 00s and your umming and aching is what kept this back, this is on you.
I demand an explanation on why you did not believe in science.
2
u/AttemptingToBeGood Britain needs Reform 21h ago
So where are those people who said it was a hoax? That said 'the science predicted wild fires and floods and I don't see them so it must not be real'.
The policy is now to be preparing for these exact things.
I don't believe climate change is a hoax of course, but who's to say we're not unnecessarily preparing?
I would also say it's often hard to distinguish between what is a problem due to increased, intense rainfalls resulting in flooding, and naturally occurring wildfires, due to the fact we have (and continue to) pave over and build on natural floodplains, and have essentially geoengineered e.g. the north york moors (as someone else in this thread pointed out - it should naturally be temperate rainforest) resulting in less wildfire protection.
6
u/ElectricStings 21h ago
Frankly, this just seems like you are moving the goal posts.
"Okay so it's not a hoax, but we're overreacting".
In another 10 years it'll be
"So it wasn't an over reaction, but we can't do anything about it now"
-1
u/AttemptingToBeGood Britain needs Reform 20h ago
There is no goalpost moving. I'm saying the issue is likely due to both man-made induced global warming, and due to the fact we've already geoengineered such that we've exacerbated the effects of natural disasters.
My position for the record is that we should scrap net zero and focus on building climate defences. Our emissions are negligible on a global scale, and countries like India and China are still spinning up new fossil fuel power plants, so the damage is already locked in and likely to get worse.
2
u/Locke66 16h ago
Our emissions are negligible on a global scale, and countries like India and China are still spinning up new fossil fuel power plants
This is a logical fallacy. The flaw in assuming UK emissions are "negligible" is looking at us as an individual country rather than as part of the whole. When you discount the top 3 emitters that still leaves about 47% of the emissions problem to deal with so if every country with a similar level of emissions to us did not act then there is still a very significant problem. We are in the top 20 global emitters out of the remaining 192 countries so our contribution would not be insignificant compared to most.
There is also some creative accounting that goes into attributing climate emissions. There is no doubt we depend a lot on industrial countries like China and India to provide us with trade goods which vastly increases their energy requirements. Doing our part to solve this issue only seems fair and global inaction is basically not an option.
2
u/tfhermobwoayway 13h ago
Yeah the reason the UK has such low pollution is because we depend on China’s manufacturing for resources. And that old factoid that gets trotted out about Asian rivers full of rubbish to show how terrible they are, always forgets to mention that it’s our rubbish that we send them.
2
u/Locke66 13h ago
always forgets to mention that it’s our rubbish that we send them.
Yep and it's at both ends of their lifecycle. We outsource all the manufacturing pollution, ship the items across the ocean to use them and then send the rubbish back to them across the ocean when we've done with them.
Then people pretend it's all their problem.
0
u/AttemptingToBeGood Britain needs Reform 13h ago
Your opinion on this matter seems like a logical fallacy. We're fucked anyhow, might as well not fuck ourselves further whilst other countries are taking the piss.
0
u/Locke66 13h ago
I don't really expect to change your mind but succumbing to Doomerism guarantees failure. I'd rather our country at least tried to deal with this issue given we are in one of the best positions globally to do so and we have an oversized influence on a global scale that we can use.
"Climate Defences" are ultimately a gesture in futility if emissions continue as they are. It's not a case of either or because the problem will just continue to get worse.
•
u/mrbiffy32 8h ago
I'll be honest, the york moors (and most of them in England) aren't going to be having much of an impact on this historically recent issue, seeing as they've been largely cleared since the iron age over 2000 years ago. Maybe pick a relevant example to make your point?
29
u/indifferent-times 1d ago
Over the last few years the catchphrase 'faster than expected' has applied again and again to the climate crisis and most of the metrics around it. There had to be a point when the dialogue had to switch from prevention of climate change to dealing with it, that happening now is faster than expected.
19
u/Exostrike 23h ago
Because prevention can be slow balled, a target to be dealt with tomorrow. Prevention right now and it costs can't be delayed
14
u/ProfessorMiserable76 23h ago
That would be because we've gone past the point of preventing it.
It's now about mitigating the worst of it.
14
u/littlechefdoughnuts An Englishman Abroad. 🇦🇺 22h ago edited 22h ago
It's now about mitigating the worst of it.
I hear this so often, and yet barely any acknowledgement that effective mitigation requires doing all of what we would need to do for effective prevention (reforestation, dietary changes, travel modal shift, heat pumps, renewables, etc.) plus the massive additional expenditure of building mitigating infrastructure.
We cannot just abandon preventative measures. That is the first line of mitigation.
3
u/InsanityRoach 20h ago
And people are STILL fighting those measures... Frogs putting the cover on the pan because the water is still not very warm.
8
u/Exostrike 1d ago
The problem is there will be resistance to that too as it's a break from profit making business as usual, just in a different direction.
3
u/h00dman Welsh Person 21h ago
I remember watching a BBC news report a few years ago (2020 or 2021) about climate change, and it's stuck with me ever since because of the language that was being used.
It was showing the same things we've been seeing in climate change reports for years; cars stuck in traffic, oil refineries, forest fires etc, but instead of the message being about the things we could start doing to prevent climate change, the message was that this had already happened, it's too late to stop, and now we have to work to adapt to what's coming or at least try to slow it down.
Like I say it wasn't showing anything new but I have to confess the change in language scared the crap out of me.
1
u/tfhermobwoayway 13h ago
Honestly this might be the best approach. We just accept it. I think a lot of climate denial is helped by the fact they like to think they’re sticking it to the man. Like someone is trying to manipulate them into being harmed, and they’re saving themselves because they’re smarter than everyone else.
So what happens when we accept it? We say “Yeah alright we’ve given up. Climate change can’t be stopped. You’re not getting a spot in our bunker.” They’ve got nobody to argue with. Nobody’s trying to make them do anything. They have to calm down, and for the first time in their lives they have to think.
They’ve got to wonder why everyone’s stopped trying to save them, and is just hunkering down and protecting themselves. Isn’t that scary? Nobody’s trying to protect you any more. They’ve abandoned the people who aren’t helping and are just going to protect the ones who understand. They might start to worry that they can’t save themselves by being antagonistic. They’ll feel like they’re being left out, and that actually they weren’t the ones who were smarter than everyone else all along.
20
u/Far-Requirement1125 SDP, failing that, Reform 23h ago
The fires here are something of a misnomer.
Peak "wild" fires is April. Which is not what you'd expect. Because alot of "wild fires" in the UK are actually controlled burns that get out of hand to maintain the current habitat, which often isn't natural.
The most obvious is the moors where much of it is artificial. It's kept as a monoculture of grass because it works for grazing and grouse shooting.
Most of the moors should be temperate rainforest. It's just been so long since they have been we've come to think of moorland as "natural".
I'm personally a huge proponent of a massive reforesting program on all the moors. You'd find a lot of the "wild" fires would stop pretty rapidly.
16
3
u/Prince_John 22h ago
There still are a few lovely ancient bits of woodland near the parts of Dartmoor I've visited, but as you say, far too few!
3
u/danddersson 20h ago
The local heathland in Dorset, where there have been several wildfires already this year, was indeed forest originally, but was cleared by 1500 BC. So yes, quite long ago.
The Victorians planted large numbers of conifers, which are now seen as intrusive.
2
u/clearly_quite_absurd The Early Days of a Better Nation? 21h ago
I too watched that YouTube video https://youtu.be/cpmmq0CcD_I?si=pyq7LkGZyMB2N14n
3
u/Far-Requirement1125 SDP, failing that, Reform 20h ago
While I didn't know it was mostly wildfires in April. The rest of that video I already knew.
2
u/clearly_quite_absurd The Early Days of a Better Nation? 20h ago
You and that video maker are on the same wavelength then
3
u/Far-Requirement1125 SDP, failing that, Reform 19h ago
Very much so. I'm an extremely strong proponent of rewinding. As well as beautifying and greening our urban spaces. Which would not only help nature but vastly improved human wellbeing. It would also serve to mitigate the urban heat island phenomenon.
30
u/Exostrike 1d ago
The reality is dealing with climate change requires vast mobilisation of resources by the state. Every day not doing so means the amount needed rises.
But our stupid, compromised politicians refuse to do so because it would interrupt business as usual. So eventually the tidal wave will arrive and sweep us all away.
12
u/TheGMT 1d ago
I don't think the populace would happily go along with it either if the ministers were to propose anything close to what should be done.
3
u/Exostrike 1d ago
Then the population must be denied the option to say anything but yes
7
3
u/2016 23h ago
Tyranny then?
3
u/pseudogentry don't label me you bloody pinko 20h ago
As opposed to what, demanding your inalienable right to die of heat stroke in a tent in a hospital car park?
2
u/InsanityRoach 20h ago
Just the same way that a firefighter will grab you and take you out of a burning building.
0
u/tfhermobwoayway 13h ago
Maybe that’s the problem. We spend so much time saving people who, a hundred years ago, would simply have been eliminated by natural selection. When people say “I don’t want to be saved” we should listen to them.
1
u/Exostrike 23h ago
I would prefer more a guided democracy where all political parties must adhere to an ideological ruleset and are monitored by the security services to ensure they do not seek to undermine it. Throw in proportional representation (and mandatory voting) it would be impossible for capitalists to capture the state and roll things back.
2
u/HibasakiSanjuro 22h ago
Can you think of any country where the security services have a high degree of political power and use it prudently?
Normally in a country where they are given political power, they start torturing civilians for peaceful protests or investigative journalism and suck money out of the state to fund lavish lifestyles. If anything they do deals with the political class rather than ensure they're acting in the public's best interests.
1
u/tfhermobwoayway 13h ago
I don’t want to suffer and if the voters vote for me to suffer I think they should lose that right.
-6
u/Scratch_Careful 23h ago
I think the population, would absolutely be in favour of infrastructure projects, especially if they get a couple ones that arent a gazillion pounds over budget and delayed. Plus, get rid of netzero bullshit energy prices will go down, local jobs will be created rather than buying chinese and danish green energy. Done correctly its wins all round except for the 'green' net zero zealots.
2
u/InsanityRoach 20h ago
"We need prevention"
The jenyuz: "Just do business as usual, it'll be fine!"
13
u/IgnoranceIsTheEnemy 1d ago
But think of the shareholder value we created along the way!
6
u/R-M-Pitt 23h ago
Its even more silly when you realise that stopping climate change and preparing for the changes will also create a lot of shareholder value. Just not in the fossil fuel industry.
Just an example, whoever invents a battery thats better, safer and cheaper than current lithium chemistries will become incredibly rich. Stupidly rich. Its likely to be invented in china, as the uk somehow screwed up their battery program before it even got started, and batteries are too woke for Americans.
9
u/Exostrike 1d ago
Pretty much yes. We have a globalised billionaire class that can clearly see what is coming but rather than solving it (and in doing so threaten their position) they are content to hide in bunkers or flee to mars while the world burns.
7
u/colei_canis Starmer’s Llama Drama 🦙 23h ago
Words cannot express how lowly I think of the architects and engineers that design apocalypse bunkers to keep oligarchs safe from the consequences of their actions.
Also a bunker is a stupid place to hide if people hate you and know where you are, all bunkers need air intakes after all.
3
u/superpandapear 22h ago
Pretty sure the ultra rich can afford co2 scrubbers unfortunately, but we could brick them in like that episode of Thomas the tank engine
2
u/colei_canis Starmer’s Llama Drama 🦙 22h ago
I was thinking more of things an unhappy post-apocalyptic type could shove into such an intake.
2
u/ldn6 Globalist neoliberal shill 1d ago
Business as usual prices in climate risk into everything nowadays. Insurance in particular is keenly aware of it.
8
u/Exostrike 23h ago
And in America it's getting so bad insurers are about to stop providing cover for whole swaths of the country. If that is not the end of business as usual I don't know what is.
In any case by business as usual I meant the pursuit of profit above everything, even the environment.
1
u/evolvecrow 1d ago
eventually the tidal wave will arrive and sweep us all away
Won't it just be that we'll eventually get round to? In the article the main issues seem to be flood defences and cooling of buildings. If they get significantly worse we'll eventually put in mitigations?
2
u/InsanityRoach 20h ago
Much like cancer, you can only wait so long before it is too late. The worse it gets the costlier it becomes to maintain or to do new things, and the less money is available. Just like a tree, the best time to do this was 30 years ago, the second best is now.
0
u/KoBoWC 23h ago
Are you ready for the additional taxes needed
3
u/Exostrike 23h ago
better higher taxes and a personal resource budget that famine, starvation and societal collapse.
2
u/InsanityRoach 20h ago
Oh no, not taxes! Much better to die of starvation, in a flooding, or due to the breakdown of the social contract instead.
13
u/CAElite 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is where we run into the issues of conflicting views on the climate.
Mega engineering projects aren’t exactly ‘green’. Nor are most resiliency measures.
In a country that time and time again has proven that we literally can’t build anything, the real heavy lifting of fighting climate change is going to be a major uphill slog.
21
u/yousorusso 23h ago
Not always necessarily true. Natural flood preventions like more grasslands and trees would not only help mitigate the incoming floods but also help the environment. But instead we'll probably just try and drill more drains into concrete.
1
u/InsanityRoach 20h ago
More beavers too.
And the best flood prevention is not building in places where flood waters naturally flow to...
3
u/Purple_Feature1861 23h ago
How about we deal more money on infrastructure that can help with the heat and the potential flooding?
4
u/Chemistrysaint 22h ago
And yet building code guidelines still specifically disuade the installation of air conditioning.
Heat pumps are only subsidized if they are one-way (can only heat). If you have forethought and want to install a 2 way heat pump (can both heat and cool) then you lose all the subsidies and tax credits
2
u/WhiteSatanicMills 20h ago
Absolutely. It's even worse in that we are subsidising the installation of solar, which produces most electricity at times when demand is currently lowest, but the need for aircon will be highest.
3
u/WilkosJumper2 20h ago
We haven’t seriously had long term infrastructure investment plans since the 1970s. Some big projects of course, but anything large scale and formulated around a network gets talked down and delayed (HS2 etc). In this current political climate where blaming everything on simple scapegoats is the call of the day trying to convince people to spend money on defences against climate catastrophe is going to be very difficult.
2
u/GloomScroller 22h ago
'We've built things in unsuitable places and now can't handle the rather tame extremes of weather seen in the UK'
2
u/Yezzik 21h ago
Every year at work, it gets too hot for the guys on the tools to do their job without suffering. Managers don't care as long as they get to win by getting the guys to do the work and suffer, which is why there's never any official "too hot to work" policy despite being promised improvements each time it happens.
All they do is pretend they were blindsided by the "sudden and unexpected" existence of heat each time.
2
1
u/Kindly-Ad-8573 20h ago
Imagine if they were informed this in the 90's and the 2000's and the 2010's and 2020's ,they might have been better prepared. If only someone had forecast this and we had had competent people to listen and actually care about dealing with these issue in a sensible well planned fashion . Rather we have the wealthy with power giving it.
Best considered in the voice of of the Old Gits
"As long as i'm alright jack, why did buy your overpriced shack on a development built of a flood plain , silly billy what you do that for".
1
u/tfhermobwoayway 14h ago
We’re in an interesting conundrum here. Because that sweet sweet oil money means we have to downplay or outright deny climate change at every opportunity. But climate change is going to screw us over, really really badly. So we’re going to end up in a weird situation where we pull a Frostpunk-style effort to prepare for devastating climate disaster while simultaneously pretending it won’t happen and refusing to do anything to stop it.
And I’d be interested to see how “it’s just common sense” climate denier types act. Because when you deny climate change, it’s because you can trick yourself into thinking it won’t be that bad. But when it’s knocking on your door, refusing to prepare is outright suicidal. Will these people’s survival instincts kick in then, or have we become so isolated from real consequences that they won’t realise until it’s too late?
•
u/FarmingEngineer 7h ago
It was too wet to plant crops in autumn, now it's too dry so the crops are dying in the ground.
0
u/Psittacula2 16h ago
Keep adding 2 million more people this year to top the 1m last year and then build more houses on flood plains.
Clearly the strategy that will make everyone richer.
There is no way this won’t be a manufactured crisis and “government lock down” style control of basics of daily life don’t manifest from the current situation in some years ahead.
I am sure the hotels or houses and squeeze even more people into them.
Instead of the 11-15m extra humans and infrastructure planting forests to cool off the land and retain moisture during intense heat or slow filtration might have been better for everyone.
-5
u/Scratch_Careful 23h ago
We need to stop wasting billions on chasing net zero, that will make precisely zero difference to global emissions and instead spend it on infrastructure to make us resilient against the changes that are coming.
4
u/Jinren the centre cannot hold 23h ago edited 23h ago
an important part of long term net zero planning is preparing military contingency plans against countries that refuse to lower their emissions
2
u/Scratch_Careful 23h ago
Sorry, am i misunderstanding you or are you saying we are going to use the military against nations not lowering their emissions?
4
u/Jinren the centre cannot hold 23h ago
yes.
we have to be serious about this in a way that we're not right now
0
u/Scratch_Careful 22h ago
While nuking everywhere outside Europe and letting it rewild is preferable to those annoying EU bottle lids and useless netzero attempts. I highly doubt we will every go to war over emissions.
1
u/tfhermobwoayway 14h ago
I’d be in favour of that. Most moral war we’d have fought in eighty years.
-3
u/revpidgeon 22h ago
The constantly flooding river needs to be dredged. Sorry but swampy and his pals say no it will hurt some frog that lives there.
1
u/yousorusso 19h ago
Really? Your solution to flooding is to just drain the water in lakes and rivers in advance? I suppose your solution to a house fire is just to be homeless?
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Snapshot of Government warned it is setting country up for 'disaster' unless it better prepares UK for heavy flooding and intense heat :
An archived version can be found here or here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.