Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Conversation, if we don’t take urgent action, climate change could cause flooding to occur in the ancient Italian city of Venice.
Preserving cultural and historic treasures in a changing climate may mean transforming them
November 14, 2020 12.40am AEDT
Professor of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University
With global travel curtailed during the COVID-19 pandemic, many people are finding comfort in planning future trips. But imagine that you finally arrive in Venice and the “floating city” is flooded. Would you stay anyway, walking through St. Mark’s Square on makeshift catwalks or elevated wooden passages – even if you couldn’t enter the Basilica or the Doge’s Palace? Or would you leave and hope to visit sometime in the future?
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported that over the next 30 years flooding in Venice will increase. With the Adriatic Sea rising a few millimeters each year, severe flooding that once happened every 100 years is predicted to happen every six years by 2050, and every five months by 2100.
Venice is just one example of the challenges of preserving iconic landmarks that are threatened by the effects of climate change, such as rising seas and recurrent, intensifying droughts, storms and wildfires. In my research as a social scientist, I help heritage managers make tough decisions prioritizing which sites to save when funds, time or both are limited.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/preserving-cultural-and-historic-treasures-in-a-changing-climate-may-mean-transforming-them-145214
I hate to break it to you Erin, but some people think Venice is already flooded, and has been for centuries. Venice was originally built on a chain of low lying estuary islands, by people fleeing the violence of the Italian mainland following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. When Venice began to sink, rather than abandon their beautiful city people decided to build upwards. There is no reason for them not to continue building upwards indefinitely – I’m pretty sure modern construction techniques can keep up with a few mm per year subsidence or sea level rise or whatever.
Venice is hardly unique, except maybe in that they chose to have canals rather than elevated streets. Several US cities, like Chicago and Seattle, were also raised several metres to defeat flooding, but those cities also raised the level of their streets, otherwise parts of Chicago and Seattle might have eventually become like Italy’s Venice.
Even without large scale city projects, people who renovate houses in flood prone areas often raise the floor a little, if they perceive the flooding is causing a problem.
How dare you resist this shameless emotional pleading! You’re supposed to accept responsibility for all the things they say might happen, now, before your wallet is emptied by the ‘rona!
Was Venice always a dumb place to build a city, or did centuries of global warming /sea level rise turn it into a dumb place for a city?
When I consider that most of New Orleans is below sea level, except the French Quarter, I wonder why they rebuilt the low areas that flooded during extremely heavy rains in 1927, only to have the same areas flood again in 2005 with Hurricane Katrina. That’s called NOT adapting to the climate.
No mention of MOSE?
My take: The enviromental Left wackos haveand will always opposed anything that adapts infrastructure to rising sea levels, as it takes away the demand for the mitigation of emissions for the climate scam.
Meanwhile, in Cbina . . .
Venice is paying for the fact that in 1291, they ordered all glass furnaces out and over to the island of Murano, due to fear of fire. How dumb was that? And to add insult to injury, glassmakers and blowers were essentially prisoners, as they didn’t want any of their secrets getting out (which they did anyway). This is why to this day, Murano glass, and indeed almost any hand blown glass is so high-priced today. Payback.
Hello!
Is it only me that knows this has already been done using flood gates at the Lagoon Entrances?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53361958
I should say environmentalists demonstrated because protecting the Lagoon from flooding would damage the Lagoon environment. They really are too demonstrably stupid to live. IMO.
Several other commenters (myself included) have already mentioned that, so that answer to your question clearly is “no, you are not the only one who knows this”
Venice has always had a sinking problem. However Venice’s population have persistently resisted contributing to a ‘Sinking Fund’ (excuse the pun) knowing full well that it would sink by corruption well before it could be used.
A barrier system has at last been more or less completed; but I doubt it will solve the basic problems.
I visited Venice for the first time as a boy in the late 60’s. Already then, everybody knew that Venice was doomed and it was expected that the demise would happen within ten years. Yeah, right. Don’t misunderstand me, the situation is dire, but it can be fixed. Venice is protected by a large lagoon and has good potential to achieve a certain level of control. The lagoon is surrounded by sandbanks of which “Lido di Jesolo” is well known.
A bit off-topic: The summer trips to Venice/Lido di Jesolo were camping trips. There were very well-organized camping sites there, one of which had been a test course for German motorcycle/car brand NSU! The journey from our home town of Malmö in Sweden to Italy was an epic road trip in my father’s Volvo 142, overnight ferry to Germany, Autobahn, alps… Happy days!
Hey, at least the guys was honest about it being only a a couple of mm/year.
That is highly unusual for someone on the “CONversation”
How do we Protect Venice from Flooding and Sea Level Rise?
They way we always have, via capitalism.
Continually adding floors to buildings as they sank was very expensive, but Venice was once a very wealthy city. At the time, the advantages of its location more than made up for the expense and inconvenience of dealing with the ever rising tide. This continued for the most part for centuries as long as Venice was an economic powerhouse of industry and trade. But by the end of the 19th century, it was the economic and political tides that changed for Venice, and its wealth and influence waned. It became a economic and cultural backwater and did not return to international consciousness again until its rediscovery by the romantics in the 20th century.
Today, Venice survives economically mostly via tourism. Although tourism does bring in enough money to sustain numerous shopkeepers, hotels, restaurants and the arts, it’s nothing compared to the wealth that was created when Venice was a center of international manufacturing, trade and naval power. It’s been centuries since most of its long standing buildings have had floors added to avoid the advancing tides.
So Venice’s biggest problem is not “global warming”. It’s that it is no longer an economically viable city that can afford to address its inevitable sinking. Tourism alone will never generate enough wealth to offset the expense of mitigating the consequences of its geologically vulnerable location as it did centuries ago.
This provides a useful example for where eco-Progressivism is currently pushing the wealthy nations. By dismantling our economy in the name of preventing “climate change”, (something that even experts within the “consensus” believe we cannot do) we will no longer be able to afford to mitigate climate events that are inevitable regardless of our CO2 footprint.
America today is more than wealthy enough to mitigate whatever effects there might be from climate change. That will not be the case should the socialists be allowed to convert our economy from industriousness to “social justice”. America will be at the mercy of the weather and will eventually sink metaphorically, just as Venice is sinking literally.
How do we Protect Venice from Flooding and Sea Level Rise?
By banning hallucinogenic drugs.
Abstraction of water both in Venice and the nearby industrial areas in the lagoon have also played a significant part in the sinking of the city, though this has been largely halted as it was realised it was contributing to the threatened demise.
The absurdly gargantuan tourist liners that are allowed to sail into Venice are a sign of intemperate greed and avarice by the city authorities and greatly diminishes my sympathy for Venice. They should put their house in order and charge those coming by liner 200 dollars each to land. That should provide sufficient money to fund further remedial action.
Or better still get rid of the eyesore liners.
You’re right. The thing which is really destroying Venice is the cruise ship.
Too many people in a small place at the same time is a recipe for disaster.
Have had some beautiful late night time tours free of the ravaging hoards.
Would never go there during the high season.
All those tourists make Venice overpopulated putting it in danger of tipping over and capsizing. Just ask Rep. Hank Johnson how that works.
I can’t see how ‘eyesore liners’ would contribute to Venetian subsidence, but ruthless depletion of the local aquifers certainly did.
Still, climate change can do pretty well anything (bad), so it may as well cop the blame for this, too.
“Several US cities, like Chicago and Seattle, were also raised several metres to defeat flooding,”
I think Chicago was jacked up so they could install sewer lines.
Make the canals deeper.
Ask Barack Obama and Bill Gates how to protect Venice from rising water. Since both recently bought seafront properties for over $10 million, they obviously know the answer:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenhowley/2019/12/08/barack-and-michelle-obama-buy-marthas-vineyard-estate/
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real-estate/story/2020-04-22/report-bill-and-melinda-gates-buy-43m-del-mar-home
Don’t forget about Obama’s new Hawaii property:
President Barack Obama’s Hawaii Beach House Being Built on Idyllic Site of ‘Magnum, P.I.’ Mansion
The Venetians could always move up to the second floor. What intrigued me about Venice was the sewage disposal system and why everyone doesn’t die of mold since it is so deadly.
And what if we DO take ‘urgent action’ – any effect there?
I’m guessing not.
According to professor Bjorn Lomborg in Copenhagen, the efforts planned for the EU is to spend about 8% of its BNP on climate (around 1.4 trillion Euros) over the next three decades. This will result in a temperature decrease of 0.004C by the end of the century.
Let it GO
https://youtu.be/YVVTZgwYwVo
“How do we Protect Venice from Flooding and Sea Level Rise?”
Um, shouldn’t that question been asked a dozen or so centuries ago? Venice (due to the location it was built) has always had flooding and sea level rise issues, always will. All that can be done is adapt to it, same as they’ve always done.
Had a discussion with a climate alarmist co-worker. I don’t usually do that, but couldn’t help myself this time. The young man bolstered his argument by telling me his uncle worked for Exxon, and Exxon had to raise one oil rig because of rising seas. I was flabbergasted by the stupidity. Only one rig had to be raised??
The 1980s called, wants its emergency back
Not a darn thing we can do to affect something which we haven’t caused in the first place.