Coastal erosion disgrace - Sky news

[davepoth]

Cobnapint said:

No, still not got it.

I'm no expert,

Really?

Cobnapint said:

but the energy in one particular wave won't indefinitely ricochet down the coastline until it meets a soft object that will absorb it. Much of that energy goes straight up in the air in the form of great columns of sea water/spray, momentarily sidewards to be absorbed by the surrounding sea water, downwards onto the beach/shingle, or backwards to be overwhelmed by the next wave.

The energy of the wave pushes the sediment suspended in the water and rolling along the sea floor towards the beach. Crucially it almost never does that perpendicular to the beach, but rather it pushes the sediment up onto the beach at an angle. When the water recedes from the beach it does so under gravity, so does normally flow back down the beach directly. That's how longshore drift occurs. Not with one wave, but with lots of waves.

Cobnapint said:

And even if your theory were true, I don't believe the difference in energy absorbing qualities between a concrete wall and a cliff when faced with the enormous power of the sea would be enough to incur any noticeable acceleration in erosion elswhere along the particular coastline in question.

Absorbing the energy isn't what we're talking about. It's sediment. The cliffs on the north east coast don't just disappear, but they turn up as mud and sand further along the shore in an area where the wave pattern drops as much sediment as it removes. If you stop the cliffs eroding, where does that sediment come from?

Cobnapint said:

And I'm not professing that the state should be giving free money to people of this green and pleasant land. Heaven forbid, that would be an outrage. That money is for other things like funding deportation court cases and charter flights for illegal immigrants that should never have been let in in the first place, and handouts to foreign nations that either hate us or have absolutely nothing to do with us. But thats another story.

All I'm saying is that something needs to be done to save our coastline, after all, not all of it is owned by individuals, some of it is owned by the state.

http://news.sky.com/story/1029857/coastal-erosion-... for those that missed it.

It's a shame I can't post the Norse spelling of Canute, it makes a really fun play on words.

[Cobnapint]

Countdown said:

Cobnapint said:

All I'm saying is that something needs to be done to save our coastline,

No it doesn't. The coastline has been changing for millions of years. Rather than expecting the all-providing Nanny State to spend millions/billions of taxpayers money on potentially futile attempts to mitigate coastal erosion people need to start looking after themselves.

The 'Nanny State' has been and 'is' providing millions to stop the erosion already. And the attempts aren't futile. They just need to spend a bit more in the right places to finish the job.

[Cobnapint]

davepoth said:

Absorbing the energy isn't what we're talking about. It's sediment. The cliffs on the north east coast don't just disappear, but they turn up as mud and sand further along the shore in an area where the wave pattern drops as much sediment as it removes. If you stop the cliffs eroding, where does that sediment come from?

Absorbing energy was what DonkeyApple was talking about. I was responding to him.

And sediment is clearly the result of erosion - its stopping the erosion before it becomes sediment that is the issue.

There are plenty of other sources of sediment, eg. the constant supply from rivers and streams that flow into the sea.

[davepoth]

Cobnapint said:

The 'Nanny State' has been and 'is' providing millions to stop the erosion already. And the attempts aren't futile. They just need to spend a bit more in the right places to finish the job.

No, they need to spend billions more, and billions every year for ever, to protect the whole coastline. Longshore drift and the concept of sediment cells are a fact, not a theory. You can go and watch it in action at any beach on this country.

What we do at the moment is protect only the things that are economically worthwhile protecting.

[DonkeyApple]

Cobnapint said:

DonkeyApple said:

I think you have finally got it.

When the wave energy is not being absorbed by the soft cliff wall but being bounced back off hard concrete it has to go elsewhere.

So, no the State should not be giving free money to people.

No, still not got it.

I'm no expert, but the energy in one particular wave won't indefinitely ricochet down the coastline until it meets a soft object that will absorb it. Much of that energy goes straight up in the air in the form of great columns of sea water/spray, momentarily sidewards to be absorbed by the surrounding sea water, downwards onto the beach/shingle, or backwards to be overwhelmed by the next wave.

And even if your theory were true, I don't believe the difference in energy absorbing qualities between a concrete wall and a cliff when faced with the enormous power of the sea would be enough to incur any noticeable acceleration in erosion elswhere along the particular coastline in question.

And I'm not professing that the state should be giving free money to people of this green and pleasant land. Heaven forbid, that would be an outrage. That money is for other things like funding deportation court cases and charter flights for illegal immigrants that should never have been let in in the first place, and handouts to foreign nations that either hate us or have absolutely nothing to do with us. But thats another story.

All I'm saying is that something needs to be done to save our coastline, after all, not all of it is owned by individuals, some of it is owned by the state.

http://news.sky.com/story/1029857/coastal-erosion-... for those that missed it.

It's not theory. It is fact. Enormous energy is stored in wave action and spray and noise are tiny releases.

And you need to understand that property built on coastlines is effectively leasehold and short dated not freehold in concept. The property is priced accordingly and the State is not there to give money to people trying to pull a fast one.

You won't understand this until you forget tabloid tales and borrow a book from the library. From memory Tarbuck & Lutgens is a very good laymans publication.

[Cobnapint]

davepoth said:

Longshore drift and the concept of sediment cells are a fact, not a theory. You can go and watch it in action at any beach on this country.

What we do at the moment is protect only the things that are economically worthwhile protecting.

I'm not denying that longshore drift is fact, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the sea crashing into and eroding a cliff at a particular point, which is the main point of the Sky news report and this thread.

What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.

[davepoth]

Cobnapint said:

I'm not denying that longshore drift is fact, I'm just saying it has nothing to do with the sea crashing into and eroding a cliff at a particular point, which is the main point of the Sky news report and this thread.

What happens to the sediment after the erosion event is not the issue here.

It is precisely the issue. If you stop the sediment eroding from the cliffs, you have a deficit in the sediment budget. Somewhere else along the shore where roughly equal amounts of sediment are deposited and eroded at the moment will begin to suffer erosion as a result.

[davepoth]

Cobnapint said:

There are plenty of other sources of sediment, eg. the constant supply from rivers and streams that flow into the sea.

You don't want to build walls to stop the rivers from eroding land away then? Because that's where that sediment comes from.

[Apache]

What a strange thread, the OP has had the subject explained to him ad nauseum yet refuses to acknowledge it, how bizarre

[scenario8]

In fairness, many threads in N,P+E start off with a fairly black and white tabloidesque approach to a complex subject and just descend into pathetic bickering from parties unable or unprepared to accept challenge. At least this thread hasn't been particularly bickersome.

[Rollcage]

How do you propose to stop the sea?

As I have said, when it's high tide with a rough sea the power of the waves is enormous. The cliffs are quite high, but I can remember getting thoroughly soaked as a kid, stood a fair way back from the top.

When you have 10-15 foot waves to deal with, there isn't a lot that will stop them. The North Sea is VERY rough, a lot of the time.

[FiF]

DonkeyApple said:

Now, if you knew that a length of coast was receding on average 1-2m a year but it did so by cutting in many metres in one place and not cutting in at all in others then you would know that you have a working erosion range of between 1 and 10 metres. So why would you ever buy a property within a few hundred metres of the edge? It is either because you are thick or because the pricing model of such coastal land is a very well known and robust system that is a duplicate of the short dated lease model.

So you pay x years of lease value. You cannot complain when x is up.

So, no the State should not be giving free money to people.

That's a concept which applies to housing, caravan parks, and so on. Takes a short term view.

Farmland, as mentioned before is a bit more tricky. Traditionally many farms have been in the hands of a family for generations, what do you do when the farm is, after many generations, no longer of a viable size. Obviously the answer isn't to protect that part of the coast as that is impractical / unworkable re cost benefit analysis and so on.

One could use your argument that Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandad Farmer Giles benefited from low prices when he originally bought the land all that time ago when it was a few miles inland, but I'd wager he didn't benefit from anything. Considering how much Govt money is spunked up against the wall to help whatever in UK and elsewhere in the world, yes I'm thinking of the Climate Change hollyhocks, PFI and God knows what else, support to help certain businesses move and / or buy extra land to make their business viable again is worthwhile of consideration imho.

In terms of the billions spunked here and there it could be just a drop in the ocean, pun quite deliberate. Yes yes I know we have no money, just a suggestion of alteration of priorities.

[vonuber]

This thread is a good example of how policy seems to work.
Problem identified > whipped up by media > proposals put forward > experts in the field point out stupidity of proposal > person disbelieves evidence from experts and does what they think anyway.

[Countdown]

FiF said:

In terms of the billions spunked here and there it could be just a drop in the ocean, pun quite deliberate. Yes yes I know we have no money, just a suggestion of alteration of priorities.

For me personally I think there needs to be a change in mindset. Over my lifetime the State has grown to provide more and more services in order to "level the playing field" / to "benefit" those who are seen to have been "disadvantaged" in some way, rather than accepting that life always has winners and losers. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their "nearest and dearest" and not just dump them om the State.

HNY

[davepoth]

FiF said:

That's a concept which applies to housing, caravan parks, and so on. Takes a short term view.

Farmland, as mentioned before is a bit more tricky. Traditionally many farms have been in the hands of a family for generations, what do you do when the farm is, after many generations, no longer of a viable size. Obviously the answer isn't to protect that part of the coast as that is impractical / unworkable re cost benefit analysis and so on.

One could use your argument that Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandad Farmer Giles benefited from low prices when he originally bought the land all that time ago when it was a few miles inland, but I'd wager he didn't benefit from anything. Considering how much Govt money is spunked up against the wall to help whatever in UK and elsewhere in the world, yes I'm thinking of the Climate Change hollyhocks, PFI and God knows what else, support to help certain businesses move and / or buy extra land to make their business viable again is worthwhile of consideration imho.

In terms of the billions spunked here and there it could be just a drop in the ocean, pun quite deliberate. Yes yes I know we have no money, just a suggestion of alteration of priorities.

So you're saying you've spunked in the ocean?

The problem with coastal defences is that they aren't just a capital spend to be balanced against the land value. They need to be maintained and repaired regularly, and that isn't cheap. Economically, the land that the defences are protecting needs to be capable of earning more money than is being spent on it, otherwise it's a waste of money.

[blueg33]

Countdown said:

For me personally I think there needs to be a change in mindset. Over my lifetime the State has grown to provide more and more services in order to "level the playing field" / to "benefit" those who are seen to have been "disadvantaged" in some way, rather than accepting that life always has winners and losers. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their "nearest and dearest" and not just dump them om the State.

HNY

I agree

[DonkeyApple]

FiF said:

DonkeyApple said:

Now, if you knew that a length of coast was receding on average 1-2m a year but it did so by cutting in many metres in one place and not cutting in at all in others then you would know that you have a working erosion range of between 1 and 10 metres. So why would you ever buy a property within a few hundred metres of the edge? It is either because you are thick or because the pricing model of such coastal land is a very well known and robust system that is a duplicate of the short dated lease model.

So you pay x years of lease value. You cannot complain when x is up.

So, no the State should not be giving free money to people.

That's a concept which applies to housing, caravan parks, and so on. Takes a short term view.

Farmland, as mentioned before is a bit more tricky. Traditionally many farms have been in the hands of a family for generations, what do you do when the farm is, after many generations, no longer of a viable size. Obviously the answer isn't to protect that part of the coast as that is impractical / unworkable re cost benefit analysis and so on.

One could use your argument that Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandad Farmer Giles benefited from low prices when he originally bought the land all that time ago when it was a few miles inland, but I'd wager he didn't benefit from anything. Considering how much Govt money is spunked up against the wall to help whatever in UK and elsewhere in the world, yes I'm thinking of the Climate Change hollyhocks, PFI and God knows what else, support to help certain businesses move and / or buy extra land to make their business viable again is worthwhile of consideration imho.

In terms of the billions spunked here and there it could be just a drop in the ocean, pun quite deliberate. Yes yes I know we have no money, just a suggestion of alteration of priorities.

True but two points. The OP is up in arms about houses. House bought cheap to reflect their limited lifespan.

The second point being that a farmer will have known for hundreds of years that his land was eroding so have been able to set aside revenue to invest in new land. Again, the State should not be bailing out farmers who have failed to invest in their future.

[davepoth]

DonkeyApple said:

The second point being that a farmer will have known for hundreds of years that his land was eroding so have been able to set aside revenue to invest in new land. Again, the State should not be bailing out farmers who have failed to invest in their future.

Indeed. Even if the land doesn't fall into the sea in that farmer's lifespan, it's a depreciating asset as the coast moves closer. Exactly like a leasehold, as said.

[FiF]

DonkeyApple said:

FiF said:

DonkeyApple said:

Now, if you knew that a length of coast was receding on average 1-2m a year but it did so by cutting in many metres in one place and not cutting in at all in others then you would know that you have a working erosion range of between 1 and 10 metres. So why would you ever buy a property within a few hundred metres of the edge? It is either because you are thick or because the pricing model of such coastal land is a very well known and robust system that is a duplicate of the short dated lease model.

So you pay x years of lease value. You cannot complain when x is up.

So, no the State should not be giving free money to people.

That's a concept which applies to housing, caravan parks, and so on. Takes a short term view.

Farmland, as mentioned before is a bit more tricky. Traditionally many farms have been in the hands of a family for generations, what do you do when the farm is, after many generations, no longer of a viable size. Obviously the answer isn't to protect that part of the coast as that is impractical / unworkable re cost benefit analysis and so on.

One could use your argument that Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandad Farmer Giles benefited from low prices when he originally bought the land all that time ago when it was a few miles inland, but I'd wager he didn't benefit from anything. Considering how much Govt money is spunked up against the wall to help whatever in UK and elsewhere in the world, yes I'm thinking of the Climate Change hollyhocks, PFI and God knows what else, support to help certain businesses move and / or buy extra land to make their business viable again is worthwhile of consideration imho.

In terms of the billions spunked here and there it could be just a drop in the ocean, pun quite deliberate. Yes yes I know we have no money, just a suggestion of alteration of priorities.

True but two points. The OP is up in arms about houses. House bought cheap to reflect their limited lifespan.

The second point being that a farmer will have known for hundreds of years that his land was eroding so have been able to set aside revenue to invest in new land. Again, the State should not be bailing out farmers who have failed to invest in their future.

Ignoring the issue of houses bought on the cheap as that's a given that we agree.

The farmer side of things is not totally straightforward given the level of subsidies flying around. Yes a consideration could be that if the farm business has had a clear opportunity to purchase / lease additional land further back from the coast and thus secure a longer term future and has clearly failed to do so for whatever reason, including burying head in sand, then that would go against their case.

The problem is that many people seem to agree that coastal protection should be put in place where it's cost effective, or whatever is to be protected is "worth protecting." WEll that's a fairly vague sort of strategy / target. At what point does one say, right here, we do here.

Whilst acknowledging the right in the arguments that why support a business that has been unable / unwilling to invest in it's own future, I'm equally uneasy about casting a few businesses aside, tough titty approach, whilst at the same time, we are finacially supporting industry that isn't in the slightest bit viable without that support, eg windmill generation subsidy. It just seems wrong somehow.

Clearly I'm not suggesting that defences should be put in place, that's barking, but the alternative for the farmer who goes bust, is that we house a few families, pay them welfare etc etc until they find a job, when we could possibly assist them to start up elsewhere. Let's be realistic it's a relatively small part of our coastline that has this problem to the necessary extent.

I dunno the answer, just trying to put some perspective, that it's not all about some numpty who buys a giveaway bungalow within 150m of the cliffs, assuming incorrectly it will last him out and finding it won't, for whatever reason, erosion increases, increased longevity, sea defences installed further up bla bla bla.

Let's not forget, we, as a nation, are spending a fortune on flood defences mainly on rivers, the same approach that is being done on the coast would be to say, no more defences, you bought the houses, farms, factories, tough titty, suck it up.

Edited by FiF on Tuesday 1st January 16:36

[DonkeyApple]

Although the farmer can sell his remaining farm and get a job on someone else's farm.

This little diversion does raise another interesting question though. And that is whether farm land should be able to be bought without a 'workers license'? Cost of land has been elevated strongly in recent decades by the use of it as an investment tool. But I think this digresses too much.

Back to the coastal element, the scenario does remind me of the steamroller scene in Austin Powers. Those effected have generally chosen to do nothing about it until it is too late.

Flood plains are a more difficult one insomuch as they impact a far higher number of people. I believe it relevant to look at what groups permitted certain building and why.

And also why properties that are regularly flooded unlike decades ago the occupiers are not adapting to this situation?

I read a few weeks back of a publican whinging that he'd been flooded for a third time and all his furniture ruined again. It raised the question as to whether he was too retarded to run such a business. You go to other parts of the UK which are flooded every few years and the publicans use far more appropriate furniture.

I've been on the lash several times in York and stood in pubs in wellies and the furniture has been fine because it is the right tool for the job.

I know people who have moved to new areas and ignored the advice from locals re flooding and paid the price.

There are very many people for whom their first option now is to not engage brain and adapt but to do whatever they want and then go running to mother when it goes wrong.

But at the same time, it is clear that not all is down to this. Many people are being flooded because of cheap, bad or criminal town planning. And this is where it differs from the coast in this discussion. This is not necessarily a result of nature but of the negligent consideration to existing nature by elements funded by the State. So in these cases the State is ultimately at fault not nature.