29 January 2003

This report is written to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the catastrophic floods that struck eastern England on 31 January and 1 February 1953. It focuses on Canvey Island, where the majority of fatalities occurred, and which has since seen an extremely rapid rise in population, faster than any new town.

The author, Christopher Keene, is the press officer for S E Essex Green Party and a resident of Canvey Island. He is a former lecturer, having taught both environmental studies and psychology, and the report considers not only the physics of climate change, but also human reactions to it, and ends with a series of recommendations for both reducing climate change and adapting to it.

Its intended audience is opinion formers and decision makers in eastern England.

On 31^st January and 1^st February 1953, an extreme depression accompanied by northerly gales caused a storm surge in the North Sea which moved down the East Coast of England, devastating communities from the Humber to Kent, and killing over 300 people.

But according to Hilda Grieve, in ‘The Great Tide’ (1959), the book published by the County Council of Essex about the disaster "…. the evil combination of factors which produced it might have been even worse. The storm surge might have occurred when heavy rainfall had already swollen the Essex rivers; it might have been superimposed upon spring tides with a higher predicted range; its peak might have coincided more closely with the predicted time of high water; and the wind might have veered at the critical moment to the northeast, as it did in 1938".

The sea defences have since been strengthened twice, and a far superior system of severe weather warnings has been instituted, so the residents of such towns as Canvey Island, which experienced the highest mortality in the 1953 disaster, with 58 people losing their lives, feel so confident that such an event will not recur that Canvey saw the highest price rise of residential property anywhere in England last year. But some scientists are warning that, with the greenhouse effect, climate change and global warming increasing both the sea level and the strength and frequency of rainfall and storms, such confidence may well be misplaced. And should a disaster occur, it will have far worse consequences as the sea walls are now even higher, the population is about three times greater and a large proportion of it consists of old people living in bungalows.

Various gases in the Earth's atmosphere trap heat from the sun and so act like the glass in a greenhouse. The result is to make the planet hotter than it would have been otherwise. Part of this effect is natural: pre-industrial levels of these gases warm the Earth to an inhabitable average of 15°C, instead of a chill -6°C.

Human activities since the Industrial Revolution have released large extra amounts of greenhouse gases, both naturally occurring gases and newly created ones. It is the extra warming of about 0.8°C - caused by our industrial civilisation - which is changing the world's climate, causing ever more frequent extreme weather events. Note that a cooling of less than 0.2°C caused the little ice age in the 17th century.

The most important gas causing this enhanced greenhouse effect is carbon dioxide, which is produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, and also by destruction of rainforests or melting of the permafrost. The second most important gas is methane, also produced from melting of the permafrost, and from ruminant animals and rice paddies.

There is a time-lag of several decades before the effect of greenhouse gas emissions reaches its maximum effect on global warming because of the time it takes for the ocean surfaces to warm, so the extreme weather we are experiencing now is a result of the greenhouse gases emitted during the 1970s and 1980s and earlier, and will go on getting worse even if we reduce our emissions now.

The time taken for the full increase in sea levels to occur is even greater. Sea water expands as it warms and this causes a rise in sea levels, but this warming takes many centuries to penetrate the deeper and colder waters of the oceans, and so sea level will keep on rising for this length of time, even after we have stabilised concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

An increasing number of scientists now fear that we may enter a period of rapidly increasing global warming and climate change caused by positive feedback effects. Such feedback effects include melting of the permafrost; dieback of the Amazon rainforest as it dries out ("Climate and the Amazon: Consequences for our Planet", conference organised by the Climate Initiatives Fund, 31 October 2002); melting causing replacement of heat reflecting snow and ice with heat absorbing vegetation or sea; and release of methane from methane hydrates under the ocean at the edge of continental shelves ("Gas Blasts. Methane once frozen under the sea floor may help heat up the climate" by Prof. Erwin Seuss, Research Centre for Marine Geosciences, Kiel, Germany. Scientific American, December 2, 1999).

It is just possible that we may have already entered such a period. Temperatures in the northern hemisphere (where most global warming takes place because this is where most fossil fuels are burnt) rose 0.7 degrees C between the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1750 and 1990, but a further 0.4 degrees C in the decade between 1990 and 2000. Only hindsight will tell whether this does represent the beginning of a more rapid rise in temperatures or whether it is merely a result of natural variation. (For a more detailed discussion of the feedback effects which could cause the runaway greenhouse effect, see "Stormy Weather: 101 solutions to global climate change", by Guy Dauncey with Patrick Mazza, published in 2001 by New Society Publishers, page 18)

The most authoritative scientific body considering climate change is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which represents the views of several thousand scientists from all over the world. It is frequently claimed by those who deny the existence of global warming that, since we have had storms, droughts, floods and ice ages in the past, today’s extremes are merely due to natural variation in the climate. But the IPCC have taken all these past climatic variations into account, and their latest report (released in 2001) is much more definite and also much more alarming than their earlier reports. The WG1 report, which deals with the basic atmospheric science, says 'In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'; while forecasting a further rise in temperatures of up to 5.8°C this century. This would be thirty times bigger than the change that caused the little ice age and is similar to the average difference between ice age and non-ice-age conditions over the past million years.

However, new and more detailed work using more advanced models, carried out at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Research centre last autumn, after the work on which the WG1 report was based, says in part: ‘The rise in global mean surface land temperature between 2000 and 2100 is around 3°C greater. [than] .. previous model estimates". Their accompanying chart shows temperatures rising to 8°C above pre-industrial levels.

This is an example of a general tendency for forecasts to become worse as models advance and as more evidence accumulates. Given the still very limited range of factors that are included in the models - when compared with the full complexity of the linked ocean-atmosphere-biosphere - there is still plenty of scope for forecasts to carry on getting worse. If a rise of 0.8°C is already causing storms, floods, heat waves and droughts, as well as melting of Arctic and mountain glaciers, then changes at an increase of another 6-8°C could be truly catastrophic.

The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen from pre-industrial levels of around 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to around 370 ppmv and has already caused dramatic changes. If people do not change their behaviour it is projected that

this concentration may reach more than 1000 ppmv. Even if we reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60% now, the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere will rise to over 450 ppmv before levelling off in a few centuries. The corresponding temperature rise might be 0.5-2.0°C, triggering a considerable increase in damages but not completely devastating society.

Global warming causes sea level to rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of glaciers and the polar ice caps where these rest upon the land. It also gives rise to climate change because of the extra energy in the world’s weather systems. This leads to an increase in stormy weather, but rainfall may either decrease of increase, depending on the exact location. Current predictions are for Britain to experience a slight decrease in summer rainfall, but an increase in rains in winter.

The increasing storminess increases the chance of a deep depression coinciding with strong northerly winds in the North Sea, as happened in the 1953 disaster, and if this is combined with a period of heavy rain induced by climate change, and a spring tide, then possibly the sea defences would fail yet again.

The Agency believes that, for the moment, residents of coastal areas are safe, although "there is a risk, a very small risk, of a catastrophic event". (Guardian, 4 January 2003, "50 years on, new menace of fatal flooding", by James Meek) However, their calculation that residential areas such as Canvey Island would suffer a failure of flood defences less frequently than one year in every thousand is based on figures available in the 1970s when the Thames Barrier was designed. These calculations led to a prediction that the Thames Barrier would be closed no more than 10 times a year, but in the winter of 2000/2001 there were 24 closures.

This throws considerable doubt on the reliability of such calculations. In December 1999, a massive storm surge of five metres or more breached sea defences in Denmark previously thought to be impregnable ("50 years on, new menace of fatal flooding" by James Meek, Guardian, January 4, 2003). The height of storm surges is increased by the funnelling effect of the coastline of the North Sea, leaving the Thames estuary particularly vulnerable.

One of the greatest drawbacks to relying on predictions of future climate change is their large degree of uncertainty, both scientific uncertainty about the reaction of the climate to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, and uncertainty about future emissions, which depend largely on political decisions.

According to the Environment Agency (Planning for Flood Risk Management in the Thames Estuary, January 2003) "A significant issue is uncertainty about the increase in storminess predicted under climate change. This will affect both the severity of river flooding and critically for the Thames Estuary, of North Sea tidal storm surges." It was just such a storm surge that resulted in the catastrophic floods of 1953. Rather than this uncertainty being an excuse for inaction, as some lobbyists for the fossil fuel

industries would prefer, it should be a catalyst for even greater efforts to both curb climate change and improve our defences against it.

The flood defences for residential and industrial areas are greater than for farmland, yet in some areas this is in danger of being inundated permanently, particularly in the fens, where the peat is shrinking and reducing ground level even further below sea level.

In Wallasea Island near Southend, a local farmer has recently invested £1 million in building a new sea wall because he believes "the government would work out a cost-benefit analysis and just allow the sea to inundate our land".

Worldwide, some 30% of the best croplands lie on flood plains and are vulnerable to flooding. With an expanding population, there will be a desperate need for this land.

The natural human reaction to the possibility of an event which is both catastrophic and seen as unavoidable is one of denial – simply to pretend that the threat does not exist and to carry on as normal. This has been the reaction of the majority of people so far to climate change.

There is also the problem that the actions of any individual will have an infinitesimally small effect on the problem, so most people are reluctant to carry out actions, such as giving up their car, which will cause them personal inconvenience but have virtually no effect on the problem. It is therefore imperative that we initiate a collective response.

Attempts to do this have, however, been thwarted. Organisations from industries such as coal and oil with a vested interest in maintaining ignorance and inaction on the issue formed the Global Climate Coalition to spread doubt on the science behind global warming, and to fund the handful of scientists who were sceptical of the theory. They even financed a $13 million advertising campaign to oppose the Kyoto Protocol (see below).

These sceptical scientists are given a disproportionate amount of media coverage, partly due to the immense funding for public relations of organisations such as the Global Climate Coalition, and partly due to the desire for ‘balance’ in the media. Such a desire, despite its laudable intentions, in fact results in a gross misrepresentation of the truth, as one of the tiny handful of sceptical scientists will be given an equal amount of coverage as a scientist representing the vast majority who agree that human-induced climate change is happening, and is a very serious problem indeed. This media bias is even worse in the USA than in Britain.

The great majority of scientists are of the opinion that global warming is happening and it is being caused, at least in part, by human activity. Over 2000 of them are part of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which issues

periodic reports on the issue. Their last report, in 2001, came to the conclusion that we were causing the planet’s climate to change. Global average temperatures could rise by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.

This scientific consensus eventually resulted in the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Although environmentalists pointed out that the emission reductions agreed to were insufficient to stabilise global climate, it was at least a step in the right direction.

However, a number of organisations with vested interests in the fossil fuel or automobile industries funded President Bush’s campaign, and he repaid them by withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. The most important of these was the oil company Exxon (trading as Esso in the UK), and so a number of environmental organisations - Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and People & Planet, with the support of the Green Party, instigated a campaign (http://www.stopesso.com) to boycott Esso petrol. This is having some effect on Esso sales.

Climate change is already happening, but the effects will be worse, possibly much worse, if we continue with the policies that have produced it in the first place. We must therefore do all we can to mitigate it. Actions to do this are much easier than many people realise, and have a number of other benefits, such as reducing the cost of energy, reducing traffic congestion, and reducing air pollution. What follows are just a few of the many actions we could take. More can be found in an excellent book, "Stormy Weather: 101 solutions to global climate change", by Guy Dauncey with Patrick Mazza, published in 2001 by New Society Publishers

Support renewable energy.

The government’s plan to provide grants for householders of 50% of the cost of solar photo-voltaic roofs to produce electricity is welcome, but solar energy could cut our emissions further – for example if we followed Germany's lead and aimed for 100,000 solar roofs.

Greens are calling on the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, and all local authorities to use their planning powers to make solar panels compulsory in all new buildings. Installing solar panels on a roof could prevent over 34 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions during its lifetime.

The price of solar electricity would be competitive with that of electricity from fossil fuels if there were a commitment to produce more solar power. KPMG carried out a study in 1998 showing that if a solar factory could increase its production to 500 MW per year, the price would fall by around 70% (see "Stormy Weather", above).

Britain is the windiest country in Europe. According to Greenpeace, we could generate three times our total energy requirements from offshore wind power alone.

Wind energy is already competitive on price, but the government’s new energy trading arrangements cause problems because they encourage generation from a constant source of energy, rather than the intermittent supply generated by wind power.

Total installed wind energy capacity in Europe broke the 20,000 megawatt (MW) mark in 2002 and currently stands at 20,447 MW, according to a new report from the European wind energy association.

Other European governments are way ahead of Britain in supporting renewable energy, and the country will be left behind and economically disadvantaged unless Britain’s policies are changed.

Transportation is one of the activities where we can make the most differences to future climate change. Transport policy is currently geared towards encouraging the worst possible means of transport, air and roads. The government should reverse their proposals for spending more money on roads and put more into the rail network instead.

They should take action to reduce road traffic, as the Green Party have been pressing them to do for over a decade now. The two Road Traffic Reduction Acts which we promoted, one passed by a Conservative government the next by New Labour, were both watered down and made totally toothless by the removal of any targets.

The government’s proposals for tripling aviation by 2030 are nothing short of madness. Aviation is the most unsustainable of all forms of transport and the fastest growing contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation emissions of carbon dioxide are only about a third of its contributions to global warming.

We ought to be setting a good example to developing countries in our policies, and continuing to drive and fly unnecessarily is the worst one we could set.

Buy organic food.

Organic agriculture results in carbon dioxide being converted into plant material that is then incorporated in the soil. The world’s cultivated soils contain twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. Modern, intensive agriculture results in carbon being released from the soil.

Eat less beef.

Cattle produce a large amount of the potent greenhouse gas methane in their stomachs.

Buy locally produced goods.

Globalisation has resulted in a massive and unnecessary transfer of consumer goods and food around the planet, many of them flown in, and since aviation is the most environmentally damaging of all forms of transport buying local can do a great deal to combat the greenhouse effect.

As already pointed out, we cannot stop all climate change; sea level will go on rising for centuries and extreme weather events will continue to increase for decades after we have stabilised greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere no matter what we do, so we must adapt to it.

There should be a presumption against any further building on flood plains. The uncertainties of climate science mean that we cannot take the risk of increasing the number of properties in these areas.

Much of the pressure for more houses, particularly in the South East, is driven by migration from other parts of the country where there is a shortage of employment. We need regional policy to direct investment to where it is needed, rather than allowing market forces to further develop south east England.

According to a recent report by the Government’s Energy Savings Trust ("Putting climate change at the heart of energy policy" September 2002) five million people risk being inundated by rising seas and increased rainfall, and plans to develop the Thames Gateway would make things even worse by adding another million.

There are even plans to build thousands more houses on Canvey Island, despite the warning by Sarah Lavery, the engineer responsible for designing the next generation of flood defences for the Thames estuary, that "there is a risk, a very small risk, of a catastrophic event." (Guardian, 4 January 2003, "50 years on, new menace of fatal flooding", by James Meek). This is an excellent example of the process of denial described above under "Reactions to climate change". The sea walls may be higher, but this could make things even worse; should a catastrophe occur, the water would be that much deeper.

The procedure for evacuating Canvey was even abandoned in the 1990s, after the police warned of the possibility of fatalities in the panic to get off the island should evacuation become necessary. To build yet more houses in such a place, with all the uncertainties surrounding the predictions of climate change, particularly storm surges, is extremely risky.

Even the government has warned that Canvey may be uninhabitable by 2080. (Evening Standard: 25 April 2002).

This report has looked at the problems of flooding posed by climate change, focussing in particular on Canvey Island.

It would be easy to become overwhelmed by the enormity of the problems posed by climate change, but the majority of them could be overcome relatively easily if it were not for the vested interests which maintain the status quo.

The policies needed for minimising the dangers of flooding, both in reducing climate change and adapting to it, require government intervention. Allowing market forces a free rein will make matters considerably worse, as will listening to vested interests such as the fossil fuel and motoring lobbies.