@jwildeboer Germany should certainly do more. However, the real "doing" would be stopping emissions. And since that's never going to happen, guess what? Not even the Netherlands are doing enough. What will happen is that all of us, whether from northern Germany or the Netherlands, will meet down here in Bavaria sooner or later, the area surrounding the Alps being the last to flood. 🤷 (Yes yes, I am a terrible cynic, I know.)
@jwildeboer
Older German river flood dikes are designed to withstand the rare river flooding - which usually only lasts for some hours or a few days. If those soak for (way) too long they can become unstable.
Sea dikes are a completely different thing and as safe as the ones in the Netherlands.
In fact breaking river dikes in Germany are advantageous for the Netherlands as the flood peaks are smoothened out (while land areas in Germany are drowned)... 😈
@jwildeboer Investing into prevention (or increasing said investment) only works if the threat is obviously immediately deadly beyond all doubt, or you've been fucked over by it within the same generation of those in power.
Otherwise? There's more political capital to be made in arguing against it, or worse, later being lauded as a fighter against the disaster when it actualized.
@larsmb@jwildeboer
Are these more brainworms from the creators of: "debt is bad"/"spending is wasteful"/"state capacity is totally comparable to a Schawbian housewive's budget"? Genuine question as I don't want to unfairly jump to conclusions (though can't really think of what would justify neglecting flood defences...)
@Veza85UE The human psyche is very very very bad at investing into mitigating a hypothetical future risk.
I don't think it's penny pinching. From flood defense, climate change, to infectious disease prevention - it's always an uphill struggle relative to the budget for the military.
Those who then manage the crisis get rewards. If you prevented it, nothing happened, so they'll call you a fool.
@jwildeboer Agreed. But I think that's more of an effect than a cause, though it clearly makes the situation worse.
If (flood) prevention had potential to win votes, it'd happen.
@larsmb@jwildeboer Preventing things from happening will always have a hard time to win votes, because it's way harder to promote that you actually fixed something, especially if it solely decreased the likelihood of something bad happening in the long term.
@tongpu@jwildeboer Exactly. If it happens anyway (even if mitigated or less frequently), clearly you failed to stop it. Just give up, nothing can be done.
If it doesn't happen (because you prevented it)? Clearly money badly spent, see, nothing happened. Stop your fearmongering.
Nothing showed that more clearly recently than COVID.
Flood planning is different in NL because it's an absolute and always imminent threat.
Add comment