• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Coastal erosion 'may not be stopped'

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Coastal erosion 'may not be stopped'

    People living on Britain's vanishing coastlines have been told there is nothing they can do to stop their homes from being lost to the sea.

    The new head of the Environment Agency says coastal erosion means stretches of land are doomed - and evacuation plans should be drawn up.
    Linky


    Anybody here got beach side property?
    Confusion is a natural state of being

    #2
    "Parts of north-east Norfolk and Suffolk are most immediately at risk, he said."

    Where abouts are these places? If they disappear what difference does it make?

    Comment


      #3
      So will England only be about 10 miles wide in 100 years

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by foritisme View Post
        So will England only be about 10 miles wide in 100 years

        The sediment drifts over to Holland. Holland will be 300 miles wide.
        "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Paddy View Post
          The sediment drifts over to Holland. Holland will be 300 miles wide.
          Have you not seen Al Gore's movie "an inconveniant truth"?
          The whole World will be flooded like in "the day after tommorow".
          All countries will become tropical palm fringed islands.
          Holland will be 100 metres under-water.
          Bored.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by ace00 View Post
            Have you not seen Al Gore's movie "an inconveniant truth"?
            The whole World will be flooded like in "the day after tommorow".
            All countries will become tropical palm fringed islands.
            Holland will be 100 metres under-water.
            thank the lord we are doing so well in the rowing and sailing. At least the Brits will survive. The Dutch can grow webbed feet and gills






            (\__/)
            (>'.'<)
            ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

            Comment


              #7
              I live 3 miles from the sea. 100 years ago this spot was 3 miles from the sea. A 100,000 years ago it was under the sea. 200,000 years ago, it was under ice and 1,000,000 years ago it was a desert.

              Not trying to disprove global warming, but plate tectonics plays a huge part in this...
              Illegitimus non carborundum est!

              Comment


                #8
                If it were any part of London, there'd be appeals, emergency taxing, media frenzy, etc. And there's the clue... the biggest threat to London is a big surge down the North Sea, washing up the Thames, and causing devastation. So, what should be done: (a) Build defences to ameleorate such a surge (N.B. this option is expensive and requires planning and intelligence), or (b) Allow the east coast (north of London) to erode, thus widening the surge path, and so taking a fair whack of energy out of it, as well as creating (as a side effect) salt marshes which act as sponges, with the small, piffling cost of displaced folk who don't live in London? Go on, have a guess.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Bob Dalek View Post
                  If it were any part of London, there'd be appeals, emergency taxing, media frenzy, etc. And there's the clue... the biggest threat to London is a big surge down the North Sea, washing up the Thames, and causing devastation. So, what should be done: (a) Build defences to ameleorate such a surge (N.B. this option is expensive and requires planning and intelligence), or (b) Allow the east coast (north of London) to erode, thus widening the surge path, and so taking a fair whack of energy out of it, as well as creating (as a side effect) salt marshes which act as sponges, with the small, piffling cost of displaced folk who don't live in London? Go on, have a guess.
                  (c) Close and weld shut the tidal barriers, and help turn London into a wetland area. Cost: £1.50

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Flubster View Post
                    I live 3 miles from the sea. 100 years ago this spot was 3 miles from the sea. A 100,000 years ago it was under the sea. 200,000 years ago, it was under ice and 1,000,000 years ago it was a desert.

                    Not trying to disprove global warming, but plate tectonics plays a huge part in this...
                    Not wishing to poo poo your argument, but plate tectonics does take slightly longer to have an effect than rising (or falling) sea levels.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X