UKC

flood prevention?

Given the increased likelihood of 'extreme weather events' in the future (seems likely in a warming climate) then would it not be more cost effective and reasonable (creates jobs, allows for strategic planning and reduces distress and risk to life from actually dealing with a flood) to actually invest in some flood defence infrastructure?

Apparently the Dutch spend 0.5% of their GDP on flood defences following their experience of the 1953 North Sea storm surge which killed 1800+ people.

In reply to TMM:


The UK also spent heavily on sea defences and other measures. Hence why the 2013 storm surge is unlikely to be in the history books.

In reply to TMM:

A careful look at the small print suggests it isn't new money in any event. A bit smoke and mirrors in the accounting

In reply to dissonance:

A very good point and one that's getting overlooked

In reply to TMM:

Shame the treasury couldn't apply the same cost benefit of £1 spent, £8 benefit to the banking industry

In reply to TMM:

Because QE is clearly only of benefit when you give it to bankers to snort cocaine from prostitutes' tits.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Is that how QE works?

In reply to TMM:

I believe so, yes, although for completeness I should have mentioned Porsches and champagne.