Coastal erosion disgrace - Sky news
Discussion
vonuber said:
jbi said:
Well it's pretty much a case of just how much concrete your willing to throw at the problem
Well no, not anymore. build a barrier long enough and erosion will essentially "stop"... the tradeoff being cost and elimination of the natural environment.
blueg33 said:
if you live in a high risk area, the risk is high. You have the choice.
I am not sure why people expect he Government to pay up. Its blindingly obvious which areas have fast erosion, a house survey when buying shuld flag it as should a lawyer, an insurer and common sense.
So we're all quite happy to sit back in an 'I'm alright jack' pose and watch while the country gradually washes away into the North Sea are we?I am not sure why people expect he Government to pay up. Its blindingly obvious which areas have fast erosion, a house survey when buying shuld flag it as should a lawyer, an insurer and common sense.
And who else other than the government, just for interest, has the financial means to undertake such a project? You're not expecting the land owners to pay equal subs into a multi-million pound sea defence project are you?
Of all the billions of tax payers money that gets wasted on bribing foreign governments into being our 'friends', surely securing our own coastline should be quite high on the list of necessary things to be done.
The erosion isn't going to stop. Somebody, sometime in the future is going to have to bite the bullet and commit to doing something about it. Why not help the economy a bit and start now?
Cobnapint said:
blueg33 said:
if you live in a high risk area, the risk is high. You have the choice.
I am not sure why people expect he Government to pay up. Its blindingly obvious which areas have fast erosion, a house survey when buying shuld flag it as should a lawyer, an insurer and common sense.
So we're all quite happy to sit back in an 'I'm alright jack' pose and watch while the country gradually washes away into the North Sea are we?I am not sure why people expect he Government to pay up. Its blindingly obvious which areas have fast erosion, a house survey when buying shuld flag it as should a lawyer, an insurer and common sense.
And who else other than the government, just for interest, has the financial means to undertake such a project? You're not expecting the land owners to pay equal subs into a multi-million pound sea defence project are you?
Of all the billions of tax payers money that gets wasted on bribing foreign governments into being our 'friends', surely securing our own coastline should be quite high on the list of necessary things to be done.
The erosion isn't going to stop. Somebody, sometime in the future is going to have to bite the bullet and commit to doing something about it. Why not help the economy a bit and start now?
jbi said:
care to explain?
build a barrier long enough and erosion will essentially "stop"... the tradeoff being cost and elimination of the natural environment.
Hard defences have a nasty habit of reflecting the waves, as well as cost and environmental issues. build a barrier long enough and erosion will essentially "stop"... the tradeoff being cost and elimination of the natural environment.
Current flood thinking is rather to manage and make space for water than traditional hard defences.
What makes people thjink a concrete barrier is the solution? It would have to encircle the country, closing off ports. It would eliminate huge areas of sensitive and rare habitat, we would have no clean beaches etc
As for responsibility, if people knowingly take the risk of living in that type of location then why should the Government pick up the tab? If I buy I house with subsidence I don't expect the Gov to pay.
As for responsibility, if people knowingly take the risk of living in that type of location then why should the Government pick up the tab? If I buy I house with subsidence I don't expect the Gov to pay.
A lex said:
That is not a 'natural' increase in erosion rate, its not Mother Nature. Its selective human intervention and the genuinely affected have a right to be compensated IMO.
You keep saying this but I can't see any reason why protecting one bit of coast would increase errosion somewhere else.The waves lose their energy when they hit the coast, if that coast is a barrier how does this teleport the waves energy several miles away?
cymtriks said:
You keep saying this but I can't see any reason why protecting one bit of coast would increase errosion somewhere else.
The waves lose their energy when they hit the coast, if that coast is a barrier how does this teleport the waves energy several miles away?
It is much more complex than just wave energy, for instance the material from erosion in one area is deposited in another area protecting that second area. If you halt erosion in one place then the sediment is not available to be deposited in other areas and hence the rate of erosion in those areas increases.The waves lose their energy when they hit the coast, if that coast is a barrier how does this teleport the waves energy several miles away?
It is not practical or generally desirable to halt coastal erosion, the whole process of marine sediment transport was a year of my degree course and we barely scratched the surface, the computer models were huge, and the studies of existing coastal defences showed all sorts of unintended consequences elsewhere.
Mojocvh said:
From the "7yr old radiotherapy "thread...
Jasandjules said:
Personally I believe the state is here to serve us NOT the other way around.
Deva Link said :
Your belief is incorrect - the State MUST protect the interests of those unable to protect themselves.
so what's it gonna be then?
Not that the quotes seem remotely relevant but are you trying to compare the human rights of a small child to an idiot who bought a house on the cheap by a cliff edge? Jasandjules said:
Personally I believe the state is here to serve us NOT the other way around.
Deva Link said :
Your belief is incorrect - the State MUST protect the interests of those unable to protect themselves.
so what's it gonna be then?
blueg33 said:
cymtriks said:
You keep saying this but I can't see any reason why protecting one bit of coast would increase errosion somewhere else.
The waves lose their energy when they hit the coast, if that coast is a barrier how does this teleport the waves energy several miles away?
It is much more complex than just wave energy, for instance the material from erosion in one area is deposited in another area protecting that second area. If you halt erosion in one place then the sediment is not available to be deposited in other areas and hence the rate of erosion in those areas increases.The waves lose their energy when they hit the coast, if that coast is a barrier how does this teleport the waves energy several miles away?
It is not practical or generally desirable to halt coastal erosion, the whole process of marine sediment transport was a year of my degree course and we barely scratched the surface, the computer models were huge, and the studies of existing coastal defences showed all sorts of unintended consequences elsewhere.
Have you ever been swimming in the sea? You know how you get carried along the shore? That's longshore drift. Instead of you, it's millions of particles of silt, sand and gravel. Here's a diagram, please copy it down and colour it in neatly.
Say you have a bit of coast with cliffs made of silt (like in the north east) and a marshy area a bit further down the coast (like in Lincolnshire). The silt from the cliffs drifts down the shore to the marshy area. The cliffs recede, but the marshy area is maintained. If you stop the silt eroding, you'll likely find that the marshy area will erode away. And that's even before we start looking at offshore sediment.
davepoth said:
The module I did at university was "Coastal Geomorphology"; given how that sounds much more complicated I'll chime in.
Have you ever been swimming in the sea? You know how you get carried along the shore? That's longshore drift. Instead of you, it's millions of particles of silt, sand and gravel. Here's a diagram, please copy it down and colour it in neatly.
Say you have a bit of coast with cliffs made of silt (like in the north east) and a marshy area a bit further down the coast (like in Lincolnshire). The silt from the cliffs drifts down the shore to the marshy area. The cliffs recede, but the marshy area is maintained. If you stop the silt eroding, you'll likely find that the marshy area will erode away. And that's even before we start looking at offshore sediment.
Exactly and that's just on the most basic of levels Have you ever been swimming in the sea? You know how you get carried along the shore? That's longshore drift. Instead of you, it's millions of particles of silt, sand and gravel. Here's a diagram, please copy it down and colour it in neatly.
Say you have a bit of coast with cliffs made of silt (like in the north east) and a marshy area a bit further down the coast (like in Lincolnshire). The silt from the cliffs drifts down the shore to the marshy area. The cliffs recede, but the marshy area is maintained. If you stop the silt eroding, you'll likely find that the marshy area will erode away. And that's even before we start looking at offshore sediment.
Its amazing how far the sediment goes and the impacts.I loved the coasts part of my degree although the mathematical models for sediment transport were pretty taxing
blueg33 said:
Exactly and that's just on the most basic of levels Its amazing how far the sediment goes and the impacts.
I loved the coasts part of my degree although the mathematical models for sediment transport were pretty taxing
I did Marine Geography at Cardiff. When we did beach surveys it was more or less "This beach is nice. Ice cream anyone?" Its amazing how far the sediment goes and the impacts.I loved the coasts part of my degree although the mathematical models for sediment transport were pretty taxing
Needless to say I got a 2:2.
The costline in that area erodes at the rate of approx 1.9m per year (average since 1951). However, in recent years this rate has been measured at 7m per year.
You can see why the residents would be worried, but you would have to be seriously stupid to buy a property anywhere along that coastline and not expect it to fall into the sea, and sooner rather than later.
The above image shows settlements in the East Riding area that the sea has claimed over the centuries.
You can see why the residents would be worried, but you would have to be seriously stupid to buy a property anywhere along that coastline and not expect it to fall into the sea, and sooner rather than later.
The above image shows settlements in the East Riding area that the sea has claimed over the centuries.
sugerbear said:
Slightly off topic but does extraction of sand/gravel out at sea hve any influence on the rate of erosion ?
Quite possibly. If it means material doesn't make it to shore that would have done previously.The comments further up the thread about rates of erosion increasing in some areas are telling. IIRC much of that increase is down to new coastal defences further along (wracks brain trying to recall the case study).
Sea defences to prevent erosion just rob Peter to pay Paul.
I spent a year looking at sediment transport along the Dorset coast many hours of sonar mapping of the sea bed and sea sickness!
sugerbear said:
Slightly off topic but does extraction of sand/gravel out at sea hve any influence on the rate of erosion ?
A change in the shape of the sea floor on a continental shelf has potential. However, you wouldn't know if it would lead to erosion or deposition of be of any relevant magnitude. There is also the probability that it would silt up itself quite quickly and I guess a small chance that it could be scoured out further once opened. The reality is that no one really can predict impacts from such changes.
Keeping the world's busiest sea lane clear (Channel) is likely to have impact on the French and English coasts as well as German and Dutch, if not further afield.
The sensible thing to do if wanting to buy on the coast is to buy a cheap geological map and see what is underneath an area. And then give a swerve to sedimentary areas for starters.
eccles said:
Do you really not see that the people who bought houses a few hundred yards from a well known eroding cliff should bear the responsibility if their house falls in the sea?
To a point it is surely the governments duty of care to maintain our coastline in a safe condition, not just for the unfortunates that live within your theoretical 'few hundred yards' line of house purchasing stupidity, but for others who will (at a membership gathering rate of approx 7 metres a year) through no fault of their own, ultimately fall within this line themselves. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff