The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[acottawa]

We saw this in the floods in Eastern Canada a few years ago. Ontario implemented strict flood rules (i.e. don’t build in the floodplain) in the 1950s after hurricane Hazel, and a relatively small number of houses was affected. Quebec did not have such rules and many neighborhoods were affected.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

We saw this in the floods in Eastern Canada a few years ago. Ontario implemented strict flood rules (i.e. don’t build in the floodplain) in the 1950s after hurricane Hazel, and a relatively small number of houses was affected. Quebec did not have such rules and many neighborhoods were affected.

Indeed. Super easy to abandon most of the Lower Mainland.....

From, "Climate change is no big deal," to "You should never have lived there to begin with. It's your problem now."

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Indeed. Super easy to abandon most of the Lower Mainland.....

From, "Climate change is no big deal," to "You should never have lived there to begin with. It's your problem now."

If you want people to live and keep livestock at the bottom of a lake (which doesn't seem like a great idea, but fine), there has to be the infrastructure in place for a catastrophic flood from time to time. Climate change will likely make such floods more frequent, but there still needs to be a plan.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you want people to live and keep livestock at the bottom of a lake (which doesn't seem like a great idea, but fine), there has to be the infrastructure in place for a catastrophic flood from time to time. Climate change will likely make such floods more frequent, but there still needs to be a plan.

Nobody disputes the need for a plan. Would have been a lot easier to get planning, if we didn't have two decades of climate denialism pretending that climate change either wasn't real, or wouldn't have significant impact.....

That said, I find it interesting that all the climate deniers and minimizers who claimed that mitigation was entirely pointless and that all effort should be targeted at adaptation, are so quick to suggest, that any area, getting hit with extreme weather, is not one we should have ever settled. I wonder how much more of the country we write off, before they get to understanding that this is what climate change does.

[Chadillaccc]

^^^

I remember after the devastating Calgary floods in 2013, some dipshit on this forum said that it’s so stupid that a downtown of a major city would be built in a flood plain and that it should be moved… it’s like, what do you even say to someone with such little perspective? Clearly they don’t have a trillion+ dollars to move the second largest office nexus and 4th largest Central population in the federation to an entirely greenfield location. So what do we do? Mitigation. Just like Winnipeg did decades ago for the same reason, mitigation is underway so that when the next “1 - 100” year flood hits within a decade or less, five people won’t be killed, two small cities won’t be destroyed, and 130,000 people won’t be evacuated.

We’ve been raising downtown above the flood plain for decades, but that clearly wasn’t enough in 2013. Now we have new barriers under construction, massive removal of earth from the rivers to ensure through-flow during floods, the city’s primary upstream dams have been modernized and have greater capacity, and the Elbow River diversion is about to begin construction.

That’s how we do it… that’s the only way we as a civilization can do it.


A much better and more apt example in the context of the BC disaster might be what the Calgary region is doing combined with the New York Harbour Barrier proposal, or the nearly identical, decades-complete Maeslantkering and Deltaworken projects of the Netherlands.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Nobody disputes the need for a plan. Would have been a lot easier to get planning, if we didn't have two decades of climate denialism pretending that climate change either wasn't real, or wouldn't have significant impact.....

That said, I find it interesting that all the climate deniers and minimizers who claimed that mitigation was entirely pointless and that all effort should be targeted at adaptation, are so quick to suggest, that any area, getting hit with extreme weather, is not one we should have ever settled. I wonder how much more of the country we write off, before they get to understanding that this is what climate change does.

Adaption will require some hard choices about what is worth saving and what isn't. If people in BC are really attached to lakebed living then it will be expensive to make these houses resident to these catastrophic floods. The other option would be to bring back the lake/wetland that were there for thousands of years or use the land principally for cropland that can sustain a catastrophic flood from time to time (this is why most floodplains in Ontario are parks, for example).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Adaption will require some hard choices about what is worth saving and what isn't. If people in BC are really attached to lakebed living then it will be expensive to make these houses resident to these catastrophic floods.

It isn't just the Samas area. I suggest you look up how much of the Lower Mainland is at or close to sea level. Pretty easy to sit in Ontario and tell others that they have "some hard choices about what is worth saving", when it doesn't involve a huge chunk of the settled areas of your province.

In any event, I hope we've all learned that climate change deniers don't really care much about adaptation either. It's all about "hard choices" when the adaptation bill comes due.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It isn't just the Samas area. I suggest you look up how much of the Lower Mainland is at or close to sea level. Pretty easy to sit in Ontario and tell others that they have "some hard choices about what is worth saving", when it doesn't involve a huge chunk of the settled areas of your province.

In any event, I hope we've all learned that climate change deniers don't really care much about adaptation either. It's all about "hard choices" when the adaptation bill comes due.

Yeah it sucks, but it is the world we are facing. There are countries that face way worse challenges than BC (rich ones like the Netherlands or poor ones like Bangladesh). There are lots of best practices out there, but communities will have to probably ditch some of the worst practices in terms of urban planning and house design. Among costal areas, BC is rather fortunate, it doesn't get Tsunamis, hurricanes or large storm surges

[someone123]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Adaption will require some hard choices about what is worth saving and what isn't. If people in BC are really attached to lakebed living then it will be expensive to make these houses resident to these catastrophic floods. The other option would be to bring back the lake/wetland that were there for thousands of years or use the land principally for cropland that can sustain a catastrophic flood from time to time (this is why most floodplains in Ontario are parks, for example).

The answer to the situation is "it's complicated" and depends on local factors like the geography and cost-benefit scenarios of different infrastructure projects. It's tiresome to read low information stories from outsider observers about the poor residents who are idiots and denied climate change so got their comeuppance etc. I live near this place, know people affected by the flooding, and I feel like I don't know the full story yet. The understanding of climate change and weather patterns is statistical; nobody knows that one specific flood event would not have occurred without it, and anyway here in BC we have done about as much about climate change as any province.

The Sumas area is ALR and can't be developed beyond farmland with some farm houses. I don't think it's a coincidence that the more rural areas ended up being flooded while the urbanized ones were largely spared, though the media didn't do a great job of reporting on this. The future question for Sumas is if something reasonable can be done to prevent future floods and what risk of flooding the residents want to tolerate.

From a cost-benefit perspective I'd guess that losing 10% of your livestock on average once every 30 years (or whatever it works out to) is completely worth it to be able to operate farms there, on excellent land next to a major city that can't be used for anything else. But maybe the flooding is avoidable with better infrastructure. In some cases it might just be a matter of raising the houses or barns up slightly.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If people in BC are really attached to lakebed living

Although Abbotsford has seen substantial residential development and the population has swelled as a result, the lowest-lying areas are home to some of the most productive farmland in Canada. Sumas Prairie supplies metro Vancouver with eggs, dairy products, fresh fruit, etc. These farmers can't just move somewhere else (their life savings IS their land, buildings, equipment, and animals) and it will be hard to replace that fresh food supply.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

^^^

I remember after the devastating Calgary floods in 2013, some dipshit on this forum said that it’s so stupid that a downtown of a major city would be built in a flood plain and that it should be moved… it’s like, what do you even say to someone with such little perspective? Clearly they don’t have a trillion+ dollars to move the second largest office nexus and 4th largest Central population in the federation to an entirely greenfield location. So what do we do? Mitigation. Just like Winnipeg did decades ago for the same reason, mitigation is underway so that when the next “1 - 100” year flood hits within a decade or less, five people won’t be killed, two small cities won’t be destroyed, and 130,000 people won’t be evacuated.

We’ve been raising downtown above the flood plain for decades, but that clearly wasn’t enough in 2013. Now we have new barriers under construction, massive removal of earth from the rivers to ensure through-flow during floods, the city’s primary upstream dams have been modernized and have greater capacity, and the Elbow River diversion is about to begin construction.

That’s how we do it… that’s the only way we as a civilization can do it.


A much better and more apt example in the context of the BC disaster might be what the Calgary region is doing combined with the New York Harbour Barrier proposal, or the nearly identical, decades-complete Maeslantkering and Deltaworken projects of the Netherlands.

One of the most striking and ominous flood barriers that I can think of in the city is this wall underneath Glenmore Trail:

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9870...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9878...7i16384!8i8192

There's a similar one built around the entire Calgary zoo as well.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yeah it sucks, but it is the world we are facing. There are countries that face way worse challenges than BC (rich ones like the Netherlands or poor ones like Bangladesh). There are lots of best practices out there, but communities will have to probably ditch some of the worst practices in terms of urban planning and house design. Among costal areas, BC is rather fortunate, it doesn't get Tsunamis, hurricanes or large storm surges

There were tsunami warning signs all across coastal Vancouver island when I visited in 2017. Particularly around Tofino. When the big one hits there is likely to be a devastating tsunami. As for hurricanes and storm surges they were just hit with a historic hurricane level cyclone which broke records prior to all the flooding back in October. A cargo ship lost 109 containers in the ocean and was stranded at sea while fire crews battled a mining material blaze on board.

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b...-sea-1.5644146

[WarrenC12]

There's a reason people have settled at river deltas and coastlines since the dawn of civilization.

This isn't just about flooded plains either. It's highways and railways being wiped out. Even oil pipelines are impacted(!).

[O-tacular]

Another group who can't just pack up and leave the land are native bands whose reserves have been permanently altered by this event:

'We have nowhere': B.C. First Nations, rural residents say storm permanently changed the land

"For our grandchildren and their children, now the devastation has left them nothing": Shackan First Nation Chief Arnold Lampreau.


Chief Arnold Lampreau expects his house is a total loss, but the devastation goes far beyond that, extending hundreds of years into the future.

Last week’s storm didn’t just flood the Shackan First Nation’s reserve in B.C.’s Nicola Valley, Lampreau said, it changed the landscape.

“It moved rivers and moved hills and filled valleys and then created new valleys … That’s the magnitude of that storm,” said the elected chief of the Shackan First Nation. “The land that our ancestors had worked for thousands of years and ensured that we had a place to grow … productive crops, those lands are no longer there. They’re just rocks.”

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...anged-the-land

[Taeolas]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Although Abbotsford has seen substantial residential development and the population has swelled as a result, the lowest-lying areas are home to some of the most productive farmland in Canada. Sumas Prairie supplies metro Vancouver with eggs, dairy products, fresh fruit, etc. These farmers can't just move somewhere else (their life savings IS their land, buildings, equipment, and animals) and it will be hard to replace that fresh food supply.

Another thing to consider as well, is WHY this land is so good for farming, and it is often the flooding that makes it so good. Sure it sucks to have to deal with the damages flooding causes; but (industrial runoff risks aside) flooding often helps refresh the land, adding a new layer of fresh dirt and just mixing things up, which makes the land better for future farming.

So part of the solution isn't necessarily to close off that land from all uses; but to make sure the farming uses can take advantage of the land without being destroyed when the floods come. (In many ways, it's something we've adapted to in the Saint John River valley; the spring freshets are a pain to deal with, but the flooding does help make the valley very productive farming-wise for NB farmers)

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There were tsunami warning signs all across coastal Vancouver island when I visited in 2017. Particularly around Tofino. When the big one hits there is likely to be a devastating tsunami. As for hurricanes and storm surges they were just hit with a historic hurricane level cyclone which broke records prior to all the flooding back in October. A cargo ship lost 109 containers in the ocean and was stranded at sea while fire crews battled a mining material blaze on board.

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/b...-sea-1.5644146

Indeed.

1964: B.C.‘s tsunami disaster

Anyone who has been to the West Coast of Vancouver Island knows the risks of Tsunamis, and can witness past evidence of such events.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Last week’s storm didn’t just flood the Shackan First Nation’s reserve in B.C.’s Nicola Valley, Lampreau said, it changed the landscape.

“It moved rivers and moved hills and filled valleys and then created new valleys … That’s the magnitude of that storm,” said the elected chief of the Shackan First Nation. “The land that our ancestors had worked for thousands of years and ensured that we had a place to grow … productive crops, those lands are no longer there. They’re just rocks.”

That's the sort of thing Mother Nature sometimes likes to do. Thought these guys worshipped her...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

From a cost-benefit perspective I'd guess that losing 10% of your livestock on average once every 30 years (or whatever it works out to) is completely worth it...

Totally inhumane though. Raising barns would probably work. At first sight it's of course very simple, except that cattle is really heavy.

You're right that it's prime land and I was about to say (someone beat me to it) that you WANT to have your cropland flooded from time to time. Brings new nutrients.

Ideally, we'll soon nearly stop eating (real) meat anyway, so those fertile lowlands right next to a major city will be used for growing veggie food knowing that they flood from time to time, and everyone'll be happy.

Originally Posted by Taeolas

Another thing to consider as well, is WHY this land is so good for farming, and it is often the flooding that makes it so good. Sure it sucks to have to deal with the damages flooding causes; but (industrial runoff risks aside) flooding often helps refresh the land, adding a new layer of fresh dirt and just mixing things up, which makes the land better for future farming.

Exactly.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Totally inhumane though. Raising barns would probably work. At first sight it's of course very simple, except that cattle is really heavy.

I agree but they're not necessarily humane operations, though arguably some are (I don't think it's cruel to have chickens that wander around outside and lay eggs as long as you take care of them well). I'm just responding to the idea that these people are idiots who are losing money or devastated economically because they put their farm in a floodplain. Or that these farms would have been fine if not for climate change.

From the perspective of chickens who live for 4 months this once in 30-year event is a once per 90 generation event. Fraser Valley chickens could easily have a sub-0.1% flood fatality rate.

I do think the correct solution will probably avoid all of these issues through some mix of adaptation in land use and infrastructure improvements. But the details around that seem unavailable. I think pointing fingers (they should or shouldn't have had some land use, the infrastructure was bad, people are climate denier fools) is premature right now. Let's wait for the flood waters to recede and for assessments of engineers before we pass our judgements...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

I'm just responding to the idea that these people are idiots who are losing money or devastated economically because they put their farm in a floodplain.

Suffice to say that I'd gladly buy prime farmland in the Abbottsford area off any current owner who didn't buy it too recently, giving them what they paid for it