They choke the entire river, even the mighty ones.
Besides the soil isn’t good for construction, heck, it’s not good even for agriculture for first few years.
2 Likes
Sewage farms then, you could take the whole worlds shit.
1 Like
Dreding and embankments are necessary to protect certain strategic areas, large towns, industrial sites and such.
The thing with increasing the flooded area with land management is that it retains an incredible amount of water which in turn would lead to less silting down stream and less water down stream so the amount of dreading needed should be reduced and the embankments that rest in place would be less likely to be breached.
It would be a massive task though that would take tens of years to see the greater benefits. The scale would be unpresidented and of course there would be massive resistance (I mean were talking about ‘deliberately’ flooding certain areas so as to have less risk down stream (that’s not always appreciated).
are you mocking me 
Not at all, it was dark humour. In the remit of the amount of waste that the west has sent east.
2 Likes
Cheeky barstards are sending some back
This is just the top result
https://www.circularonline.co.uk/news/21-containers-of-hazardous-waste-returned-to-uk-from-sri-lanka/#:~:text=21%20containers%20of%20’hazardous%20waste’%20are%20being%20sent%20back%20to,’%2C%20according%20to%20BBC%20News.
It’s like they don’t want our crap.
2 Likes
The FT has an article which is well worth reading for anyone with a subscription:
Path to net zero puts heavy burden on UK consumers
Another policy doomed to failure, then, seeing that it relies upon individuals to stop putting their own selfish interests first.
2 Likes
I agree with your point and while I also concede that everyone as individuals must do more that is just a plain fantasy from this government and wholly typical. They’ve just passed the buck again and sit there and claim victory.
Boils my blood. Nothing changes unless they initiate the change. Words from them are worthless. Words from Boris even less so.
PS I need to actually read the article but I felt like venting.
2 Likes
I guess what you are suggesting is the integrated and holistic management of flood plains and river basins which, in our case, is almost the entire country.
Theoretically if properly maintain all the interconnected rivers, canals, channels, wetlands, lakes etc. then the flooding will not be too severe. Part of the excess water will be channeled downstream faster and part of it will be stored.
It should have been very easy in Bangladesh since being a delta we were basically a network of rivers, tributaries, canals, lakes, wetlands etc. However, decades of draconian policies and planning has severely depleted large swaths of these natural drainage and catchment systems.
Yes, we can still try to revive, restore and maintain these arteries.
2 Likes
Yes however the challenge is immense.
The problem for Bangladesh is that it is a delta. You need to start the system further upstream which would require cooperation of at least india. From what I can gather there’s a lot of disputes over water management in the region so such an operation would be extremely difficult. Also to be effective large swaves of land would be turned over to mangrove or forestwhich would put many rural people and hence the government in unsolvable predicaments.
i read that if the sea level rose 1 m 50% of Bangladesh would finish below sea level. Average height above sea level of Bangladesh is 12 meters. If a retention scheme had been in place for the last 50 years that could have been increased.
Irrigation is often a big problem in a delta like yours it generally means draining wetlands and channeling water to the ‘dry’ areas outside the monsoon season. Essentially you destroy the natural defense against catastrophic flooding and channel water to the areas that don’t generally fllood (of course this can be managed however it needs to be managed efficiently and that’s not easy over long periods of time.
Still Bangladesh has the largest mangrove ‘forest’ in the world which is quite something.
1 Like
Are you including a paper plane from a sustainable forest?
1 Like
And the third question, should they and with what justification?
1 Like
Yes. It’s still using up wood, even if it is from a supposedly “sustainable” source.
1 Like
An idea, and it just occurred to me. Give everybody over 18 on the planet (upto 2 siblings to prevent the inevitable consequence) 100 air miles. The legal right to fly 100 miles. Half the planet can’t use them but they could sell them. Nobody can fly without sufficient miles.
Yes the rich will still fly but it will help to level up the poor and share ecological responsibility.
Just a thought.
2 Likes
But if that wood had been intentionally planted to be wood (otherwise it would never have existed) it would have absorbed some CO2 yes?
1 Like
No. How much CO2 is used in chopping down the tree, converting it into paper, transporting, marketing, etc?
Once a tree is planted, you leave it there.
1 Like
Does boiling piss, do anything for climate?
Asking for a friend.
2 Likes
Its as if man invented wood.
2 Likes
I think the quotation came originally from the Oxfam report, “Confronting carbon inequality”.
Details from this report include:
• The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people)
were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions –
depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in
those 25 years alone (see Figure 1);
• The poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people) were responsible for just
7% of cumulative emissions, and used just 4% of the available
carbon budget (see Figure 1);
• The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for
15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget –
twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population (see
Figure 1);
• The richest 5% (c.315 million people) were responsible for over a
third (37%) of the total growth in emissions (see Figure 2), while
the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that
of the poorest 50%
Picking up on your point,
the 49% in the middle, account for 78% of the cumulative carbon emissions.
1 Like
So it’s may fault then…?
Damn, I was hoping to blame them millionaires again.
Seriously I don’t see how anything gets started in fixing this without a joined up global effort, with serious political backing (with finance).
yeah that’ll happen.
Somehow we need to get beyond money and the value of objects and just do things.
2 Likes