As the FT has noted this morning:
The UK's sea level is rising faster than the global average and at an accelerating rate, scientists have warned in a study that also shows how climate change is making Britain hotter and wetter as extremes of weather “become the norm”.
Sea levels have risen by 13.4cm in the UK since 1993, compared with a global average of 10.6cm, according to the annual state of the UK climate report published on Monday.
They added:
Svetlana Jevrejeva, a scientist at the National Oceanography Centre and co-author of the research, said the report for 2024 was the first time it had noted that the UK's sea level rise was above the global average. This “intensifies coastal hazards” around the country, she added.
That, I think, is right up there with the greatest understatements of all time.
Among the many threats that this country is failing to take seriously, rising sea levels is amongst the highest.
For example, when the sea walls around The Wash in Norfolk and Lincolnshire begin to fail, as they inevitably will given the current state of indifference towards maintaining them at adequate levels, the most productive farmland in the whole of the UK begins to flood as far inland as Bedford, with cities like Cambridge likely ceasing to be sustainable. Moreover, we will lose whatever agricultural sustainability we currently have.
Despite the desperate desire of right-wing economists and those politicians they inspire, to pretend that the future does not exist because they claim that all the financial consequences arising in time to come can be fully and appropriately appraised as if they occur in the present, that is total nonsense. As a matter of fact, we have to plan for future events that are distinctly different from those happening at present. One of these differences is flooding.
We are going to see more floods in the future. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.
The choice that we have now is not to discount this possibility (as economists would put it), or to pretend that it is too expensive to consider, but to instead plan for the certainty that it will happen. If we wish for our children to live in a viable country, then we have no choice but to do so.
In that case, the big question is why our politicians are pretending otherwise and why they are so squeamish on this issue, which is absolutely fundamental to the future viability of the country as a whole in which we live? They are willing to squander hundreds of billions of pounds on nuclear power plants that might well be underwater before they can ever deliver the energy that they supposedly promise, but they are not willing to consider how they might protect the land on which people live from ceasing to exist. The irresponsibility of that is incomprehensible.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Inland as well
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/local-news/major-scheme-tackle-flooding-deemed-10336889
Bradford on Avon is (insert swear word that rhymes)
There are of course a lot of issues around inland’ flooding as well including solutions that would allow land to absorb more water and dont get me started on winter wheat and maize
Might the following be factors in the “leadership” lack of perception/avoidance?
1) Political/group fashion?
2) Ideological blindness?
3) The filtering out of those who perceive, research and/or think differently from the dominant group?
4) Unwillingness to pursue that which might not please big backers?
5) Promotion of glib, shallow thinkers?
6) Political group/herd avoidance of matters involving deep thought, difficult messages and long term work
7) Lack of critical and lateral thinking and questioning from citizens who are under/ill educated in the attitudes and skills needed for such?
8) Being out of office when it happens?
9) ?
You are correct – it is a blindness brought about by the stasis brought about by giving away assets to the market who are just short term. ‘Investment’ has to be tied to a financial return only it seems and shows you how perverted it all is – the ‘common good’ has therefore ceased to exist.
My biggest concern is the fresh water supply – we need desalination plants quickly I think otherwise we are in big trouble. And imagine those in the hands of ‘investors’ (landlords).
Very good point.
I worry about desalination plants as a solution. The dense brine they produce is already having locally destructive effects where they are installed. Add to that their voracious demand for energy….
All because we want ever more portable water for machinery, not human, plant of animal consumption.
Lousy stewards of the planet we have been and continue to be.
Well Mark that is fair enough – I also worry about the bottling plants for fizzy drinks and other beverages getting too much of our water supply when it is short.
I’m not aware of the problems with desalination, but it seems to me then that we need to be better at capturing and retaining the water when when it falls from the sky rather than letting it cause havoc but the answer is the same – investment.
Wait until the tech companies start demanding water for their data centres. Another way in which AI is eating the world. Or drinking it in this case.
A number of years ago David Weight of Aecom proposed The Natural Grid a canal from the Scottish borders down to England’s South-East to supply water but also a route for water cooled HVDC high voltage cables transporting Scottish renewable electricity.
https://constructionmanagement.co.uk/aecom-canal-plans-seeks-industry-support/
Oh not another way to exploit one of England ‘s last colony.
In last hundred years: coal, oil, gas, wind and other renewables sooked out of Scotland to pamper the voracious demands of “the green and pleasant lands of Englandshire”.
Enough.
Maybe time for England to grow up and stand by itself?
England’s solution for lack of in investment in England’s drinking water supply is simple.
Steal Scotland’s.
Rationally we should be planning for the most likely scenarios – which is mean sea level rise of around another 2 feet or 60cm by 2100 and considering what we might do it it turns out to be the reasonable worst case which is around 2m or six feet. And then usual tidal variation and waves and storm surges on top of that.
Agreed
Implications of rising sea levels is massive and one not ignored by HMG but the last time I looked at a govt paper it looked as if Eastern England would in effect by sacrificed because of the costs involved in tackling it.
Time and time again wrong decisions are made because of the so called costs by politicians locally and nationally to avoid the responsibility for protecting and sustaining life while advocating housing in areas that will not be safe from sea or local flooding.
Depressing.
I may be missing the point here, but, surely, if the sea level globally rises by 1 metre large land areas will be permanently submerged. In England that will include extensive areas in the east and, surely, large parts of London.
“Eastern England would in effect by sacrificed because of the costs involved in tackling it.” How would you go about tackling it? To me ‘flooding’ implies a temporary inundation. Global sea level rises would be a permanent state.
London is at considerable risk.
My last home in London had a much higher flodd risk than my current one in the fens.
I won’t have time to look into this this morning, nor perhaps all day, but I find this paragraph is a bit suspect:
“…Sea levels have risen by 13.4cm in the UK since 1993, compared with a global average of 10.6cm, according to the annual state of the UK climate report published on Monday…”
Its not possible to present one figure for “the UK” as a whole, because the effects of post-glacial rebound affect north and south in opposite ways. The south coast of England is sinking by approximately 1mm per annum, therefore ~32mm since 1983, while the north of Scotland is rising at approximately the same rate.
A hint of sensationalism allied to the, not uncommon, practise of conflating Britain, England and the UK perhaps?
I have to admit that the post glacial rebound effect had crossed my mind too.
However, my daughter is returning from a spell in South America staying in a place on one of the rivers fed by the Andes mountain range. Her showers were time limited (they automatically shut off to save water) and some days water was more severely rationed. Other things she saw were proper gulley’s on roads to cope with storm surges that directed storm rain water away/controlled flows into designated areas to be stored etc.
The point I’m making is that a lot of ice has now wound up in the sea already. Whether in Scotland or the South of England, there will be consequences. We have learnt such a lot but no investment to put it into practice. The investment would give many of those graduates struggling to find work, projects to work on as well. You also have the seasonal effects on the tides to consider as well as gravity and heat etc moves water around the planet.
But no, what we have instead is ‘can’t do this, can’t do that’ brought about by lies about money and taxation and an obsession with using property to drive the economy to the point where – I ask you! – we’ve been building on flood plains!
The only language we speak now is the language of the financial return which has become almost sacred to the point that the future matters not, and only the return that you can get right now or asap matters.
This reminded me of an article I just read concerning the terrible floods in mid-Texas. Apparently a few years ago someone proposed installing warning sirens along the valley of the Guadeloupe River. This was rejected as – too expensive. As have many other sensible projects in that Republican-ruled, stand on your own two feet, devil take the hindmost State.
Inga, during his term Biden gave that county $10.2 m specifically to install a flood warning system. They refused. Plenty of footage around of local politicians and the man/woman on the street arguing against. They refused to return the money – ‘their tax dollars’, even though Texas is subsidised by blue states – and splashed it around on (useless) things they wanted. Including the politicians giving themselves hefty pay rises.
The full report is here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.70010&ved=2ahUKEwir8svQrLyOAxVBUEEAHSbACXMQFnoECDcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0nrQR9vyQQT4RkF-edDVUD
The relevant section has caveats that the FT has omitted:
“…Over the past 32 years (1993–2024) UK sea level has risen by 13.4 cm. This is higher than the global estimate of 10.6 cm calculated from satellite altimetry over the same period, suggesting that UK sea level is rising faster than the global average. However, there are large uncertainties in estimates of sea level rise around the UK…”
It would appear, from a skim reading, that the report hasn’t taken geologic processes into account. I recall the ice sheet was estimated at 1km thick; that would mean a mass of 917kg/m³ * 1000 over land at the then sea level, or 917 tonnes per square metre. It would also appear, that the sea level, around the UK and Ireland, is rising faster the global average; so the rebound effects will be in in addition to that.
More research needed to confirm the following: the increased rate is likely to be caused by the weakening of AMOC. Projections are that if AMOC fails completely, there be a rapid rise in local sea level of around 1 metre, so its reasonable to extrapolate that a weakening AMOC will be a major factor in higher than average sea level rise around the UK. I haven’t checked that yet, but I’m confident that’s the case.
So, in addition to the average sea level rise of 3 to 3⅓mm (and accelerating) per annum, the south of England will, until AMOC fails, an additional 1mm from a weakening AMOC, and a further 1mm from the countereffect of the northern rebound; cumulatively ~5mm per annum, with the rate of rise only likely to increase for the foreseeable.
An interesting, if somewhat alarming, lunch break.
@PSR, I concur with Richard; much to agree with and your points need to be addressed with more urgency than I’d previously, until this morning, thought.
Thanks
Appreciated
Also land erosion causes (and will continue as we get more extreme bad weather) a strong impression of higher seas. Along the east and south coasts we’ve (probably) all seen hotels fall off cliffs in Scarborough, rows of beachside houses losing gardens, having become by the sea when the houses formerly across the road joined the lost. The White Cliffs losing chunks, the Jurassic coast, etc. That’s just the geology – weak and easily eroded foundation below the land. Check property prices down the east coast in particular – they seem absurdly low until you put this together.
@ Richard,
No problem, but I have to admit that my initial post was way off in a couple of respects.
There’s no doubt that consideration of post-glacial rebound needs to be factored but, on reading the report properly, its effects on relative sea level rise has nothing to do with the effects of a weakening AMOC (which I’ve since confirmed as the likely major contribution, to the discrepancy between local and average global rises, and its happening at a much greater rate than I was vaguely aware of). It does have to be considered in tandem though.
I think the FT could have left in the references to the methodology, and the indication that there may be a wide margin of error. I have absolutely excuse for suggesting that they might have been conflating B, E & UK though. All I can offer, in mitigation, is I’d only had one coffee at the time!
@ RobertJ, 9.31,
Yes, it is very worthwhile considering the effects of post-glacial rebound, because its influence will be felt for some time. The process has been ongoing for at least 10,000 years, and will continue at a very gradually reducing rate for, perhaps, another 10,000 years. There will be no noticeable slowing for the next few generations and its long-term effects will have to be considered for future sea defence planning.
The Thames Barrier, for instance, was planned with only the prevention of another 1953 type storm surge in mind. Planning began in the 60s, construction began in 1974; melting sea ice wasn’t much of a consideration then, and the understanding of plate tectonics hadn’t fully coalesced. Post-glacial rebound was fully accepted by 1890, but the understanding that not everywhere was rebounding, that there’d be a countereffect elsewhere, wasn’t known ’til much later. The Barrier is going to be obsolete, which wasn’t anticipated, and it will happen much quicker than we expected not so long ago. 32mm of additional sea level rise against a 1:10, 10% incline means an additional 32cm of encroachment by the sea. Now consider what that means, to someone born today by the time they reach their three score and ten.
Thank you, Richard.
I’m getting confused. Last week, at a nature reserve near Northampton, the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt said there were positives from climate change, e.g. new wildlife and more butterflies.
I think that is deeply confused…
The BBC sticks closely to its requirement for impartiality, when it suits it.
Thank you, John.
Last year, Rowlatt begged the leaders of some former colonies sinking below the Indian and Pacific oceans: “Surely, there must be some positives from climate change.”
@Colonal Smithers
Some lucky people will end up with water front property??????
To BayTampaBay:
re:
Some lucky people will end up with water front property??????
In our local (East Yorkshire) caravan park , each year a new row of caravans is directly next to the sea!
The entire park is shrinking every year…
There are positives to climate change. There will be winners and losers in the natural world, just don’t assume humans will be on the winning side.
Taking 32mm off or adding to the figures in the post doesn’t make a great deal of difference though, surely?
And in the latest round of infrastructure project cuts/cancellations is the project to ensure the cliffs alongside the Dawlish – Teignmouth section of the only line through Devon to Cornwall remain safe and don’t crumble into the line resulting in it being closed for weeks/months. We only have one mainline through Devon and Cornwall which is very susceptible to flooding and any attempt to get an alternative route to this vulnerable track is not taken seriously.
It beggars belief that people don’t get that being an island much of our country is really vulnerable to flooding as sea levels rise. And this includes large tidal rivers like the Thames which risks flooding London including the Houses of Parliament, not just those who can afford to live with sea views.
I don’t know if it is because the rich think they can buy their way out of problems, but the lack of any mitigation planning and continuing to build on flood plains is total madness.
Much to agree with
Just think what a boost to the economy it would be if the UK committed to wholesale climate change adaptability. Flood defences on a massive scale, self-sufficient power generation and food production, and adaptation of existing infrastructure. The list goes on and on. The rich people who see this country as a bastion of stability, somewhere to buy property and hoard their wealth under the protection of the rule of law, would be very disappointed to find out how unprepared their supposed Lifeboat Britain is. Perhaps they could be convinced to pay a little towards the adaptation works? Perhaps not. A lot of the climate denial that gets funded is in part to protect the wealthy. They don’t want people to realise that they have the money to pay for it all.
Snape Maltings (Britten Pears Arts – BPA) near Aldeburgh in Suffolk, includes the wonderful Concert Hall which is now Grade II listed. The charity (BPA) has a huge 3 year Capital Programme (£13.4 million) which includes flood defences. BPA is working closely with charity Alde and Ore Estuary Trust (AOET), which aims to maintain and improve river defences and East Suffolk Water Management Board (ESWMB) to protect the hall. In a recent visit, I was shown where the sea would reach if the sea levels were to rise by 5 feet – the entire site would be under water. I do remember the 1953 floods on that coast and which were devastating – along the East Coast, over 300 people died, 24,500 houses were damaged and over 30,000 people were evacuated -in the countryside thousands of animals were drowned and great tracts of farmland were made infertile by the salt water- it is hoped to avoid such devastation occurring again – so there are those who are planning ahead, but many more need to. Have others in this area, such as Sizewell, planned ahead? One only needs to visit nearby Dunwich to see how easily the sea can erode cliffs and reduce a once thriving sea port to a tiny village.
Thanks
I love Snape, but more for the birdwatching.
Short-termism and “Not my problem” are both baked into the UK system of political governance.
I hope sea levels rise more.
My small house in Utrecht will become seaside property!
The Netherland will be a shrinking state, for sure, with an underwater economy.
Thank you to Bay Tampa Bay.
Further to waterfront properties, in the spring of 2022, a presentation was held in NYC to detail the opportunities from climate change. That included waterfront developments as far inland as Pennsylvania and vineyards and even citrus farming in Montana.
🙂
How will rising sea levels affect Clacton? (and other Reform UK Ltd-represented constituencies? Will rising sea levels depress the value of Reform UK Ltd? Will it depress their voters?
How many Reform-run councils and mayoralties face inundation? They do seem electorally poplular in less affluent “seaside towns”, and flat East Anglian areas, so may be proportionately more at risk.
Some targeted publicity aimed at their voters, with advice on contacting their elected representatives with questions about mitigation plans, and policy priorities, might change a few minds on net zero.
Reform UK Ltd leader Mr Farage has asked one question about flood defences (in Clacton).
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2024-10-14.9090.h&s=%22Flood%22+speaker%3A26352#g9090.q0
The flood risk from all causes for his constituency office reportedly at the Royal Hotel, CO15 1PU (not Mar-a-Lago), is here:
https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/risk#
said to be “very low” from 2036-2069.
A sea level rise of 1-2 metres is already baked in, which inevitably becomes worse with every passing year in which pollution levels exceed ‘net zero’.
It’s projected that within 25 years all of the U.K.’s low-lying coastal areas will be at risk of catastrophic flooding. Before then, if nothing is done on a massive scale, all properties within those areas will have become uninsurable.
As far as I’m concerned, in a just world the polluters should be made to pay for the suffering this will cause to their many innocent, soon to be, victims – especially when they have spent billions on attempting to escape any responsibility for what they have known will happen, thanks to their putting profits before planet.
We cannot stand by and allow this to happen.
More in FT Alphaville today. They highlight an ECB report about economic costs/impacts of various scenarios. These folk are usually pretty conservative….. but what they say is scary.
Please do a piece on our excessive dependence on electricity and IT services. The Spanish thing should be a warning signal. A Carrington event is the one to ve scared of.
I have seen the LBC video…