Adaptation is a necessity.
 

The UK is once again hurt by floods and storms. If hilly Britain hadn't destroyed so many of its forests on the hills, it would have had more natural buffers that could retain the water (and also provide a buff to biodiversity!).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...haos-across-uk

Humans can be as inventive as they want, and come up with as many expensive civic engineering projects as they want, building dikes and dams and other large constructions to keep nature at bay... but at the end of the day nothing is as efficient in protecting our homes from floods than forests and marshlands. People's negative attitude towards nature, one of fighting it, is ultimately causing a lot of these troubles.

you should look up that huge Chinese dam, China's Three Gorges Dam
it's one of the few man-made structures on Earth that's visible to the naked eye from space, according to NASA.

people are saying that when it fails, millions will die

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/ch...20downs tream.

Dams are an affront to nature, especially large dams:

How dams damage rivers https://www.americanrivers.org/threa...damage-rivers/

Large dams damage health https://en.hesperian.org/hhg/A_Commu..._Damage_Health

Large dams across the world have been damaging not just entire ecosystems but also human communities.
See Amazon dams or the Aswan dam in Nubia, Egypt.

''Break the dam! Release the river!''
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x7M...nnel=KelmainPS

Dams be damned!

To get on track... let us use PLANTS to protect civilization, not construction after construction!

The article further states the very obvious truth that nature-based solutions should be prioritised, such as planting trees, restoring mangroves, and regenerating land.

The beauty of climate adaptation is that you can directly tackle these issues as well as give biodiversity and liveability a plus. While climate mitigation is important, you do not create these other pluses with it. Nature-based solutions should be given much more exposure and recognition.

Well, you understand that most are more interested in setting up something, pouring out some crazy thousands of tons of concrete, than just abandoning some regular buildings in favor of preserving the health of the planet. Now all of humanity is raking the consequences of these decisions.

Things have to change..

Start small. Check your own town/neighborhood and try to get involved in local decision making. Together we are stronger.

These kind of initiatives are pretty much in line with the rest..


Just planting a lot of trees isn't enough if it's all more of the same. Diversity of tree species improves overall biodiversity, limits impact of pests and disease, and also creates living spaces for people that are more attractive.

Nature... In its purest form, it's most natural beauty, of any kind, is the most amazing thing anyone will ever witness. Nature does not need man, for it survives as it has always done, as it always will. Man was given a brain that can "think" and act upon those thoughts. And that gift and those thoughts were abused. I used to stand and look at a weed growing out of a wall at the back of my shop. It had small purple flowers . I think that weed knew I was the only person that would appreciate it's beauty, and not pull it out of the wall.

A lot of today's problems are the result of actions taken - mistakes made - over many decades. Now there's a growing awareness that many of the changes need to be rolled back or in some other way mitigated.

A piecemeal approach will not be effective and large-scale and/or national plans need to be developed to address issues such as flooding. Meteorological experts warn us regularly that storms will become more intense, rainfall from them much greater than in the past as global climate change intensifies. It's pretty easy to see the problems, much less easy to find workable solutions.

The UK faces similar problems to other countries and its resources will be stretched very thin trying to deal with the global changes underway. And to mitigate those negative global changes will need co-operation between nations and countries at an unprecedented level.

I hope that can happen and I hope it will happen even though I will probably be around only long enough to see the beginnings of any such co-operation. If countries and nations don't co-operate then the earth's future is bleak... Or rather humankind's future is bleak and that of many other species.

This earth will go on but it may become a place where humankind will have to battle just to survive day-to-day.

I have always said Lessons were not learned when more places started to flood

they still built their horrid concrete buildings.knowing the land was a flood plane.

then they say why are you not doing anything.

My late husband dealt with disasters Floodings bomb threats fires etc

And the councils were warned then of what was to come. but they thought putting a sticking plaster over a crack would work,

they were told then to stop cutting trees down but they did nothing.

only now are they planting trees again.

its not to bad where i live we have woods forests mountains.

But the Earth will survive even after the people are gone

Namaste

what next?
 

This evening David Attenborough looked at this world's future in the last of his 'Perfect Planet' series, looked at what humankind - all of us - have to start doing and doing damned quickly.

I fear even that quickly might not be quickly enough. Tree planting schemes are a beginning but there needs to be oh so many trees planted to make a significant difference and oh so many other schemes too.

Us oldies may be dead before the worst of the changes happen but the next generations will have to live with what we've done. :icon_frown:

It's grim because the task is large, yet at the same time I have some degree of optimism too. It's more common now, at least in some countries, for a wide range of people in governments and engineering companies to include biodiversity and adaptation in their projects, whereas perhaps only 10 years ago it was mostly the concerns of ecologists and conservationists. The topic has become more mainstream and a singular focus within environmentalism on CO2 emissions and renewables is fading. People are slowly (very slowly) starting to think more holistically about the topic.

Of course, YMMV greatly depending on country and region.

population control! More people there are the more energy in all angles is needed. Bottom line is people need to eat, keep warm, clothed and sheltered. The more people they are the more resources needed.

What is worrying is that we have solutions available but actually only consume more and more with each decade. Two decades ago there were no smartphones and few had a laptop. Now most people have those and they need to be charged on a daily basis. And then there's now big data centres with energy demands, next up bitcoin. It seems to get worse and worse.

Oh and this has a DIRECT impact on the landscape, especially with the renewable/'green' energy craze, which has huge spatial impacts on ecosystems.

Let's not forget that the push to clean up the atmosphere is leading the world down the path of developing electrically powered vehicles.

They're considered non-polluting (emissions) but producing the electrical energy they would need for battery charging will remain as dirty as ever until more renewable power can be generated. The electrical demands of smart-phones and computers is important of course but may be small by comparison.

I fear for the future of EV because the change from internal combustion engines will be huge and immensely expensive and there's no certainty how quickly it can be achieved on a large-enough scale. It's possible - perhaps more likely - that other vehicle power sources will be developed and hydrogen-powered engines are more likely to succeed in my view.

All we need is an equitable and acceptable way of reducing the number of new humans appearing in this world - piece o' wet! :biggrin: Or reducing the number already consuming the earth's resources - Soylent Green time....:wink:

Yes, Bob. So we have smartphones and laptops that need recharging, homes and industries that need to be run on 'green' energy, and then all the cars as well. All of that on renewable energy?!! The spatial impact is huge and many of these renewable landscapes are built in or around environments that aren't cities or villages, iow in/near fragile ecosystems, on agricultural land, in the seas..

This is why I prefer we ADAPT (see thread title) to climate changes and create more green and blue environments that help create attractive livelihoods for people and habitat for those plants and animals that are able adapt to said changes, instead of trying our best to prevent climate change altogether.

all we would have to do is take all warning labels off of everything and let the problem sort itself out.

Oh I agree with your scepticism about the practicability..... Adaptation would be preferable but may be the epitome of perfection and unlikely to be achieved.

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

I think things are pointing in a realistic positive direction. But change takes time. Time for people to adjust and except the changes that need to be made. The biggest problem "jokes aside" is getting people to except the new. One thing I learned during the pandemic is you CANNOT tell or make anyone do anything they'll only freak out if you try.
Let's take the electric vehicle for example, they have an unfavorable reputation amongst most car people in the U.S. . Car companies are trying to change that and making them appealing. https://youtu.be/Y3846KFDmFQ This video is how you convince a car guy electric cars maybe aren't that bad.:D

The great thing about adaptation is that it’s about integration and holism. You can build a new neighborhood from scratch but have greenery, water retention, create a plus for biodiversity, create a more attractive environment to live in, increase value of real estate.

What still happens a lot now is strategies in environmentalism are one-dimensional and purely focussing on energy, and energy landscapes are very difficult to combine with biodiversity goals and liveability. Actually, they are often in direct conflict. There’s still a very technical engineering mindset, and that’s still very human centred and one-dimensional. It deals only with things that can be immediately measured.

A shift towards adaptation is IMO the desirable step in environmentalism.

Oh I don't disagree with the last idea but achieving that shift may still require a sea change in global approach. Such changes aren't all that common.....