Keeping your feet dry, 8,000BC

[Boreades]

Nice confluence! The trouble with fracking is that because it ticks all the boxes that liberal-left intelligentsia (currently) hate ie oil multinationals, carbon burning, messing with the picturesque countryside and so on

I wonder how the poor dears will cope with this news from the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)?


NERC has today signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with multinational oil and gas company Shell.

The partnership will enable Shell to put NERC's world-leading environmental science at the heart of responsible management of our planet, by providing access to independent, objective advice and information.

Collaborating with Shell in this way will benefit NERC in a number of ways, such as helping to identify opportunities for joint funding and postgraduate training which align with both partners' requirements.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2014/03-shell.asp

Having spent years dismissing any results produced by sceptics as (allegedly) big oil funded and therefore untrustworthy, they are going to have to rationalise-away the fact that in future a large chunk of environmental research is going to be done in collaboration with Shell. Some might say paid for by Shell and at their bidding.

TME prediction for 2024? NERC confirms that fracking has been good for the environment.

[Boreades]

TME regulars will know quite well how the Somerset Levels are man-made, dating back thousands of years. Even so, we're still finding some astonishing material on how man-made they are, and how much impact we humans have on the landscape there.

King's Sedgemoor Drain, for example.

In 1939/40, an explosives factory, ROF Bridgwater, was built at Puriton. The Catchment Board needed to be able to guarantee that 4.5 million gallons (20.5 Megalitres) of process water would be available to the factory every day. To this end, the Huntspill River was constructed, a little further to the north, which was essentially a revival of a plan by J. Aubrey Clark in 1853, to provide better drainage for the Brue valley. King's Sedgemoor drain was deemed to be a backup source for water, should the Huntspill scheme fail, and so all of the work which had been planned before the war started was completed, to ensure that the volume of water needed was always available. Greylake sluice was built by the Somerset Rivers Catchment Board in 1942, and used guillotine gates to control water levels. The original plaque commemorating its completion was incorporated into the new structure when the sluice was rebuilt in 2006.

ROF Bridgwater was closed in 2008, and the pumping stopped, despite the old Levels Boards who understood the issues and tried to get new pumps installed. King's Sedgemoor Drain is now drained by gravity alone, but the sluice gates at the seaward end are kept almost closed, to keep artificially high water levels in the Drain, as an officially policy of the Environment Agency.

See http://www.tauntondeane.gov.uk/irj/go/k ... 20Plan.pdf

Recent video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... UjoABQDXj4

As the sluice gates are kept closed, the "natural" consequence is that there is not enough water flow to help scour the drain and help keep it clear. So it will silt-up even more.

[Mick Harper]

But surely the Environment Agecny had a good reason for this policy. It costs exactly as much to keep a sluice gate half-closed as it does completely closed ie nothing. I am fed up with everybody running around claiming the EA are some kind of eejits. Please tell us the EA's version of the story.

[Boreades]

I'm sure we can agree that every government agency will maintain it has a good reason for every policy. Regardless of the cost of the consequencies.

[Mick Harper]

I have never heard of a government agency that acts regardless of the costs of the consequences but unless you tell us what the EA intended we are in no position to judge the soundness of your policy. Of course, we take it as axiomatic that you know more than they do but even so it would be good just to make sure.

[Boreades]

"your policy"???

As for the EA's policy, I'm just going on what they've already published. The Taunton Dean Borough Council has very kindly published a copy on their website Taunton Dean Borough Council.

http://www.tauntondeane.gov.uk/irj/go/k ... 20Plan.pdf

The good citizens of Taunton can be grateful they are in the small area for which EA says it will "take action to reduce flood risk (at a date to be determined)".

Bridgewater and Yeovil are in the areas for which EA says it will "take action to ensure no increase in flood risk"

Everywhere else is in areas with an EA policy of either "continue with existing actions accepting increased flood risk" or "take actions to increase flood risk strategically (etc)". I'd guestimate that is c.90% of the area.

Of course, the cost of the consequences is many times the EA's reduced budget for dredging. But the good news for the EA is it will come out of other people's budgets.

[Mick Harper]

Yes, yes, we know the locals are up in arms but we never hear the EA's case who are, after all, paid to act on our behalf. 'Our' being the national interest as opposed to the locals. Personally I am always on the side of the big battalions. That is generally where rationality resides.

The general case however is this:
1. We have just had the most rain of all time (presumably nobody's fault)
2. It follows therefore that we have had the biggest floods of all time.
3. It follows therefore that the present flood prevention regime is certain to have been overwhelmed in various places.
4. It follows therefore that it is nobody's fault.

That is the thing about natural calamities. The important thing is not to cast around for sacrificial lambs.

[Boreades]

Mick, your "Appeal To Authority" in this particular case is both touchingly naive and ironic, as TME generally makes a living out of dismissing orthodox authorities. The EA is hardly going to present its case here, you can find that on their own website and the BBC.

As for your "general case", it's an interesting chain of logic.

1. True, within living memory.

2. Again, true within living memory. The people who witnessed The Great Storm of 1703, when sea-going ships were washed 15 miles inland across the Somerset Levels, are hardly going to complain now. Could be 100% true if all other factors stayed the same. Like the river capacities (reduced), and the amount of pumping (reduced) and dredging (reduced).

3. True, nobody's claiming the Somerset Levels never flooded before. It's the extent and impact this time, made worse by a human-made policy.

4. Yes, the EA is certainly innocent until found guilty. As it's a government agency, it has Crown Immunity, and so can't be found guilty in a criminal court of law. Only time will tell if civil cases are bought against the EA for negligence to test whether "it is nobody's fault" at all.

Even The Independent has marked the EA's card with "must do better". So it's not all reactionary right-wing country bumkins shouting "git tharrt water orf moi laaaand!"

[Mick Harper]

as TME generally makes a living out of dismissing orthodox authorities.

This is what everybody gets wrong all the time. An orthodoxy is established as soon as two people agree with one another. Usually the second person is just repeating from the authority of the first, which is normally where the mischief lies. It has nothing specifically to do with governments, ruling classes or anything of that nature.

I was objecting to your orthodoxy ie a version of events parrotted by everybody from Somerset yokels all the way up to Pickles, the relevant government minister. Squark squark squark.

[Boreades]

I was objecting to your orthodoxy ie a version of events parrotted by everybody from Somerset yokels all the way up to Pickles, the relevant government minister. Squark squark squark.

Sorry.

That's the trouble with
(a) "in the field" empirical science and evidence-based practice
-v-
(b) centralised policies based on ideology.

They do tend to clash.