angusmcoatup
Paul
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes
A thought provoking article.
A thought provoking article.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Farmers & flooding article -plus a bit of Paterson bashing (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter angusmcoatup
- Start date
John Cantelo
Well-known member
First rate -George Monbiot at his best. I particularly liked this little nugget - "A recent report by Animal Aid found that grouse estates in England, though they serve only the super-rich, receive some £37m of public money every year in the form of subsidies. Much of this money is used to cut and burn them, which is likely to be a major cause of flooding".
Original PaulE
Well-known member
i don't know why governments spend money on reasearch and then completely ignore the results!
John Cantelo
Well-known member
If it offends their political assumptions or support base then they'll ignore anything .... on the other hand they might just be stupid!
JTweedie
Well-known member
I attended a talk at the Geological Society of Glasgow in December where the speaker talked about flood defences up and down the country. One of the things he hightlighted was that when a river floods, it leaves behind a deposit of silt which raises the level of the bank ever so slightly. When left to its own devices, it then takes higher waters to get over these raised banks the next time, in a sense natural flood defences are born each time.
http://geologyglasgow.org.uk/lectures/lecture-programme/#December
Why don't we think about not building on flood plains? They're not called flood plains for nothing. Any artificial flood defence that is built, whether on rivers or the coast will just push the floods elsewhere.
http://geologyglasgow.org.uk/lectures/lecture-programme/#December
Why don't we think about not building on flood plains? They're not called flood plains for nothing. Any artificial flood defence that is built, whether on rivers or the coast will just push the floods elsewhere.
Wildmoreway
Well-known member
Up until about 120 years ago it was standard practice to allow such flood plains to flood, indeed it was regarded as vital and landowners defended the right to have the benefits of the silt that was spread on the land during the winter floods. The simple fact is that in many places modern agricultural practices are incompatible with the natural cycle of the seasons.
As for the likes of the Somerset Levels the ground is saturated for most of the year anyway and when it rains there is going to be flooding and the land being low lying means that the flood waters are going to hang around regardless of how much they try to to make it drain away. Ancient practice was to bring beef cattle on to the levels in the dry periods of the year but to move them elsewhere when the levels flooded, much of the levels are simply unsuitable for year round farming.
Of course the real problem is that there are simply far too many of us humans!
MJB
Well-known member
That's an understandable decision, given that even when agricultural run-off is concentrated in silt, it can accumulate to variable but sometimes dangerous levels - when these flood downstream, estuary ecologies can become damaged - for example the Ythan (north of Aberdeen) where a number of eelgrass (?) mudflats were turned into a lifeless stinking mess.
MJB
That's an interesting statement. Do you have any evidence that it's true? I've spent a lot of time working alongside Environment Agency staff on projects and I've never heard them suggest that this is a factor.
The EU doesn't insist on anything being hazardous waste, unless it's actually hazardous. And dredging didn't get stopped because farmers didn't want the dredgings on their land - it's just not a very effective way of stopping flooding. Plus it has a nasty habit of improving the situation in one place only to make it worse lower down the river. Strangely enough, the people living downstream are often a bit unhappy about that.
Interesting article.
Here in Somerset we have the local M.P. banging on about the Environment Agency spending 31 Million pounds on a bird sanctuary whilst failing to find 5 Million for dredging.
Of course he forgets to mention the 45 Million reduction in the E.A`s funding.
Here in Somerset we have the local M.P. banging on about the Environment Agency spending 31 Million pounds on a bird sanctuary whilst failing to find 5 Million for dredging.
Of course he forgets to mention the 45 Million reduction in the E.A`s funding.
The Government needs to sort out CAP or its interpretation of it. As long as farmers get cash for denuding uplands and removing trees and hedges, then that is what they'll do.
Things like replanting woodland etc are long term projects that take far longer to come to fruition than the next election. The short sightedness of modern politicians only shows that they are only interested in what they can get out of it rather than what needs to be done. They continue to pay scientists for their carefully researched opinions and then blythly ignore them for a more popularist solution, regardless as to the workability of said solution. If they spent half of the money they do on "spin" on workable solutions, then we would have half the problems we have now.
End of rant.
Things like replanting woodland etc are long term projects that take far longer to come to fruition than the next election. The short sightedness of modern politicians only shows that they are only interested in what they can get out of it rather than what needs to be done. They continue to pay scientists for their carefully researched opinions and then blythly ignore them for a more popularist solution, regardless as to the workability of said solution. If they spent half of the money they do on "spin" on workable solutions, then we would have half the problems we have now.
End of rant.
Well said!
We build on flood plains to acomadate our fast expanding population. maybe the question you should be asking is why are we allowing too many people into our already over crowded island
dantheman
Bah humbug
This might be relevant? (couldn't find this thread earlier)
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2927247#post2927247
Out of interest, just how many homes are flooded on the Somerset Levels? One news story I watched I'm sure they said 40 homes, which although obviously rather majorly upsetting for the individuals concerned, isn't the same as more (although it is for a long time admittedly).
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=2927247#post2927247
Out of interest, just how many homes are flooded on the Somerset Levels? One news story I watched I'm sure they said 40 homes, which although obviously rather majorly upsetting for the individuals concerned, isn't the same as more (although it is for a long time admittedly).
Similar threads
