On 02/02/2021 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 11:30:05 +0000, GB wrote:

On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2021 11:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 01:52:25 -0800, fred wrote:

Article in Guardian moots lower insurance premiums for those
installing flood defences. Question is what type of flood defences
would be most effective. Blocking widows air vents and doors, yes,
but how would one deal with a rise in the water table?

Surely it's better for the environment to have one scheme protecting
1,000 houses than 1,000 schemes protecting 1,000 houses ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away
carbon on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream...


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets likely to
be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000 individual houses?

Sounds like communism to me.


Communism would simply ban all media reporting of any
natural (or man-made) event that caused harm/expense,
so no-one would hear about it apart from word-of-mouth.