WHO’S LAND IS IT ANYWAY? ADAPTABILITY
PART? 2 OF 9? :? ADAPTABILITY
We must face it, +1.5 degrees is no longer a realistic global expectation, we have already surpassed that and there is simply no sign that the main contributors to climate change have any intention of reducing emissions, for Trump’s America and? now? the big oil? companies, the direction of travel is clearly to increase outputs of green house? gas. Given that it has taken 220 years to reach + 1.5 one might expect that the next 0.5 degree uplift will take all of this century to reach, however most of that 1.5 deg has come in the last 70 years, so it is highly likely that 2.0 will be passed in this generation’s lifetime. An uplift of a further 0.5 degrees? doubles and in some cases triples the magnitude of effect. If that transpires then the Uk’s map will look very different by 2100, we either plan for that change positively or we simply watch, Canute like, while the waves roll in.
If we cannot alter the global outcome, and we can’t, then we need to build our safe house, to create a new UK in which it is possible to survive the worst? that a? climate? changed? world? will? throw? at? us. So how might we change? Firstly we will almost certainly lose land to the sea, The Fens and the Somerset levels plus the estuaries of the Thames, Wash and Mersey will likely be undefendable.? That means the existing populations and land uses must relocate. On a global scale low lying islands will also go, and the displaced populations will need to find homes elsewhere. At the same time we are likely to see expanding deserts, again forcing population migrations. It is all very well nations erecting walls to ?repel displaced people at the borders, but they have to survive, and sooner or later they will be an irresistible wave of humanity not wanting but needing to come in. So, in the areas that remain habitable, population densification and perhaps explosion is an inevitable consequence of climate change.
Surely formulating policy for sustainable living means being sustainable in 2050 or 2100 terms, not a 2030 version of sustainability. We must start adapting to the radically different circumstances we expect 20-50-100 years from now,? all? current? policy? assumes? today’s? circumstances? as the norm or the worst,? they? are not!? ?
At? a? simple? level living habits may also be forced to change, the school day, working day may well have to be restructured to avoid the impossibly hot periods. We may, as many Europeans already do, live a more nocturnal existence.
It must also be possible, through smarter land use planning, to defend ourselves against the worst and unavoidable effects of climate change.? Time will tell what our? climate will become, whether our summers will become droughts or warm but wet. Whichever it is winter flooding looks set to stay and so adapting land use to the assumption that regular inundation is inevitable has to be our starting point. Currently land use is determined by 1) buildability and then 2) fertility.? We are finally learning that you cannot build on floodplains but we have still to come round to truth that you cannot farm land that is submerged throughout? the winter. Suitability for farming is still based on grades of fertility,? surely ?you now have to consider both fertility and susceptibility to flooding. Unfortunately, much of our most fertile land is highly vulnerable to floods, so we may well need to focus our staple food production on land that will, in the main, stay dry? Our attitude to flooding must change, we are all going to have to learn to live with it, and perhaps start to see its consequences as a positive force.
Thinking more radically, would ?a significant increase in forestry cover start to offer some level of climate mitigation, at a local level trees do help to offset the urban heat island effect making living conditions slightly more bearable during periods of intense heat. ?Would proximity to a forest provide citywide cooling benefits?? perhaps we ought to know.
We may well find that the only way to make habitable areas barely survivable is through mechanical cooling. This may sound like the wrong think to be doing if you are trying to drive down a national carbon footprint. However, so long as the energy driving the cooling processes is renewable, then it must be sustainable to go down this route. Decarbonising energy has to be the starting point to any adaptive process, yes there are likely to be some things you can do with passive cooling, but if we are faced with temperatures regularly in the 40s then only mechanical cooling will provide the level of effect that is needed, but that needs space for many more? solar arrays and turbines. It also needs us, all of us, to start committing to a renewable future. Lets face it well over half of personal wealth in the UK sits in the hands of the baby boomers, all now in their 60s and 70s, a sum of circa ￡4tn. Until Rachel Reeves made pensions inheritance taxable all of that money was going to sit dormant? in? personal? accounts ?ready to be passed down to the children and grandchildren of those holding these assets. Suddenly, since the Budget of Doom, that wealth is now taxable and so the 60-70 year olds ?are needing to rapidly spend their surplus assets to avoid the claws of the State. What better way to spend your personal wealth than on installing solar panels on your? roof, ?and even to give to your children to spend on their solar. For maximum adaptability the UK must power up, to go from the current 40% of all energy from renewable sources to 100%, a ?perfectly feasible proposition if we? all? choose? to? commit? to? it.
PREVIOUS? POSTS
Development Project Manager - Public Realm & Infrastructure
1 周Chris, very thought provoking. I'm on board with the idea of baby boomers spending their money on decarbonising the grid!