Address the real or the imaginary threat?

The Post reported the finding of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change that around 11% per cent of developments built in the last three years in Birmingham are at “serious risk” of a “significant flood”. In November older properties were also affected (below). Selly Oak in November

Though the writer’s search of the July report did not locate this information, it did say:

“Climate change could almost double the number of properties at significant risk of flooding by 2035 unless there is additional action . . . By increasing investment in both flood defences and property protection measures, the number of (existing) properties at significant flood risk could be halved from current levels by 2035 accounting for climate change”.

The Federation of Small Businesses has called for more investment in flood defences as some of their members’ are also suffering from flood damage, but again, after the capital outlay comes the regular expense of maintenance.

This is a nation-wide problem and needs addressing by central government who should use taxpayers’ money wisely.

Ulla Grant (West Midlands CND) suggested some time ago in the Birmingham Mail that if we cannot afford to maintain basic infrastructure Parliament could decide to redirect £30billion or so for a Trident replacement and £2 billion running costs for the next 30 years.

She reminds us that if ever nuclear weapons – now far more powerful – were used again, whether by design or accident, it would be the end of civilisation as we know it: no telephones, no NHS, no computers, no library services and certainly no need for flood defences.


Has anyone got a better funding idea?