Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Cutting CO₂ is one of the least effective ways to cut flooding, if at all Flooding is mostly a problem because we tend to allow most floodplains to be built up, putting more people and property in harm's way (Bull's eye effect) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 …pic.twitter.com/xZqpisG2yT
To tackle flooding effectively, focus on not building in floodplains (allowing them to flood and alleviate flooding elsewhere) 
better regulation
Proposing CO₂ cuts is just incredibly expensive way to let flooding get worse slightly slower — a mockery of today's flood victims
Or just build a house on the hill
and stop buliding near the shore if you don't like rising seas and hurricanes! and trees if you dislike wildfires. it's all going to get worse, move people!
Thanks for that. The problem is, adaption outcomes are profoundly shaped by struggles for authority and recognition. It almost doesn’t matter what the reasons are for the recent floodings, they will be used - by the usual faces - to capture political power.
Shouldn’t we be doing both?
In my town we've built on "flood plains" against cries of disaster, the use of SUDS and land raising have been successful. Where do we build in UK, nobody wants green areas built on, some don't want brownfield development. We need lots more homes, where do we build them?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
