In reference to
the YouTube video explaining The Netherlands’ efforts to reclaim land from the
sea and to retain tidal surges from flooding low-lying lands, the effort has
achieved a variety of results: more than 2000 square kilometers of reclaimed
land from the ocean, a dike or barrier to stop high tides from affecting land
that lies below sea level, disruption of otherwise natural habitats, diversion of
ocean currents, and creation of a safety device to stop storms short of human
settlements.
In the process,
local fishermen complained that erecting a normal dam would keep fish away from
coastal fishing zones. This sparked innovation in the engineers in charge
resulting in what is known as one of modern engineering’s marvels.
The question is
whether this is a sustainable effort from a financial, environmental and social
point of view. As a human-made construction, it will require maintenance
because the forces of nature will degrade it over time. This is opposite to
what happens with natural constructions, be it forests, marshes, or grasslands:
they regenerate over time.
At least that
was the case until anthropogenic climate change, where some natural
constructions are degraded permanently.
Reclaimed land
in the Netherlands has not been reclaimed permanently. If worst-case scenarios
of sea level rising occur, it could bring that land back under the ocean. The
attempt to prevent it would require a financial and engineering mobilization
that might require lifting up the barriers not only along the Dutch coast, but
also essentially along the coast of all territories where oceans could
penetrate. Financially, that would be out of the question already.
The issue at
stake is whether humans are able to cope with climate change through human
technology. An interesting approach is what Dutch architects have been
developing as housing solutions for high-sea level regions, like the Maldives,
which could altogether disappear from above the ocean surface. These architects
have been designing life-supporting structures that basically float and are
also tied to the ocean floor, allowing for human life to thrive. Another
entirely different question is whether the necessary resources to subsist would
be available, but the effort is worth mentioning.
Coping with
climate change means coping with the new forces of nature that are being
triggered: higher sea levels, greater humidity in the air causing more rain and
increasing likelihood of flooding, shrinking ice formations reducing river
flows during melting season in spring and summer, less arable land and forests,
to name a few.
This would
require –at a formidable cost- to displace coastal communities to higher ground
where the probability of severe disruption by climate-related catastrophes is
reduced, relocation of communities towards sustainable water basins to support
human activities, better technologies for water preservation, purification,
reutilization and management, planting new forests to naturally store and
purify water, among others.
It would also
imply to change habits of consumption, not only renewable resources, such as
water and timber, but also less renewable, like beef and fish, whose
consumption at present rates come at such a high environmental cost.
In response to
the second sub-question, the largest demerit of engineering approaches to
adaptation is that it is an attempt to fight back nature instead of adapting to
it. This, instead, would require understanding the new forces of nature and
utilizing them to the benefit of life in general, and not only human life in
particular.
The greatest merit is the intellectual process that leads to
innovation, which is always so inspiring. Even the way inaccessible oil is
drilled out through innovative technologies is inspiring, despite the
consequences of burning such oil might have. Human inventive character is
monumental and truly indispensable for climate change adaptation and mitigation
to happen effectively and sustainably. In fact, it would be ideal if experts
from different fields of study would come together to collaborate creatively
towards the innovation of systems that will address the causes and consequences
of anthropogenic climate change. Imagine engineers, mathematicians, economists,
natural scientists, medical doctors, computer programmers, architects, and
philosophers, among others, coming together to define global constraints and to
generate new ideas and building solutions for a more prosperous future.
No comments:
Post a Comment