8 Million Properties at Risk of Flooding by Mid-Century –Environment Agency

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

According to the Environment Agency, 8 million homes in England will be at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea or surface water by mid-century, due to climate change.

The claim was made in their recent “National assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk in England 2024” – see here.

They expect us to believe that 1-in-4 properties, 46% of the road network and 54% of the rail network will be affected by floods.

The claims are based on the Met Office’s UKCP18 climate projections, now known to be worthless junk, as they are based on the “implausible” emission scenario, RCP8.5.

But even ignoring RCP8.5, the EA’s claims still have zero credibility. They assume, for instance, that sea levels will rise by more than 1 meter before the end of the century, and maybe as much as 2 meters. Based on historical tide gauge data, the figure is unlikely to exceed 100mm.

The EA’s own annual flood reports give the lie to their absurd claims. In the year to March 2026, for example, only 540 properties were reported as flooded in England:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-and-coastal-risk-management-national-report/flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-management-report-1-april-2025-to-31-march-2026#current-risk-and-investment

This is a particularly low number, but most years see fewer than 10,000 properties flooded. Even in 2007, when the summer floods were classed as a national disaster, the Environment Agency estimated that 55,000 properties had been flooded.

The actual flood records don’t support the crazy projections being made by the EA. Not least because relatively few properties are built on flood plains.

The EA has been working this con for years now. Dream up an impossibly big number, then double it. Feed it out to a gullible media and then use it as a basis to forecast ever bigger numbers.

The media gets its scary headlines, insurance sharks put their premiums up and the government gets cover for its ruinous Net Zero agenda.

The whole system is corrupt.

The Insurance Industry, for instance, recycles the scare stories in an attempt to hike premiums. Last year Aviva made hay:

Yet the Environment Agency’s latest National Assessment states that the total economic damages for all floods between January 2016 and November 2019 in England and Wales were estimated to be between £504 million and £924 million – £708 million at 2024 prices.

That’s less than £200 million a year – a drop in the ocean where insurance markets are concerned.

Naturally the EA say that we must cut emissions to “keep pace with a changing climate”. Apparently, they think driving our petrol cars makes rainfall heavier!

Junk Computer Models

The EA website offers the opportunity to check the flood risk at individual locations.

I live at about 500ft above sea level and about 100ft above the valley bottom. Their tool informs me I have a very low risk of flooding, <0.1%. Other than rain coming in through a leaky window seal or broken roof tile, there is pretty much zero chance of my home flooding or anybody else’s on our estate. Nevertheless, we are all included in the EA’s “8 million at risk”.

Their tool informs me:

We use computer models to estimate flood risk, based on the best data we have available.

Climate change is increasing the chances of flooding.

Climate models project we will see warmer and wetter winters, and more frequent and intense extreme weather events.

In short, garbage in, garbage out!

Coastal Erosion

One last thing to comment on.

We routinely read stories about the threat of coastal erosion. The EA report notes that only 1900 homes will be at risk of coastal erosion by 2055, and 6400 by 2105.

Not very good news for those affected but a tiny number in national terms. Many of the houses in these areas are already several decades old and will probably not even be standing by the end of the century.

A British Geological Society study a few years ago found that the affected coasts, mostly Norfolk, Suffolk and East Yorkshire, have been eroding at a similar rate to now for thousands of years.

Giant chunks of cliffs have been gobbled up by the sea for centuries. It has nothing to do with “climate change”.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 14 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
24 Comments
Bill Toland
October 13, 2026 2:30 am

Is there any way to sue the environment agency for a blatantly false report? This report can easily be used to distort insurance rates upwards so there are certainly financial damages to houseowners. The environment agency should be liable for these financial damages.

SxyxS
October 13, 2026 3:02 am

Hansen’s good old sea level hockeystick – UK remake 2026.

Using the climate science model approach
“Nature gave us an inch, we made it a mile”

KevinM
Reply to  SxyxS
October 13, 2026 9:05 pm

As glaciers shrink (in models at least) should available-for-melting ice surface area also shrink? seems like there should be a geometry-based negative feedback built into the models. Am I thinking that wrong?

Thinking: For little melting ice cubes to sustain the newly-liquid-water-increase rate of bigger melting ice cubes, rate of melting at the air-ice boundary would have to increase according to a square law. The base proposition (SLR hockey stick) might be impossible?

I’m okay to be wrong on this one if someone’s done the math. Has anyone done the math?

Reply to  KevinM
October 14, 2026 2:04 am

Yes, in terms of glacial shrinkage there is a diminishing effect.
But glaciers are almost irrelevant in the context of se level rise, The big bugaboos are the miles deep ice sheets on Greenland and on Antarctica,

But even if these melt, it will take thousands of years to overcome the latent heat of melting with extra solar input.

Plenty of time to build some giant sea walls out of landfill…:-)

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 13, 2026 3:46 am

Simpels. Phone the Dutch.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 13, 2026 7:37 am

Yes ! Seeing what the Zeelanders took from the North Sea before the steam engine is quite impressive and puts the current alarmist Trichotillomania ( just learned that word , looking for a synonym ) in perspective .

observa
October 13, 2026 6:00 am

As you were with the flooding as the doomsters have a solution-
Drying wake effect triggers offshore wind farm drought fear

MarkW
October 13, 2026 7:29 am

According to the web sites I’ve been able to find, the population of England is just under 60 million.
If we assume an average house size of 2 people, that’s 30 million homes.

8 million properties works out to between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5.

DipChip
Reply to  MarkW
October 13, 2026 8:48 am

They better hurry up, that is 333,333 per year for 24 years at 5.5 times greater per year than the 2007 flood

Reply to  MarkW
October 13, 2026 9:56 pm

The population of the UK was 60 million in 2005. Two decades later, it was 70 million. You can guess the ethnicity change over the two decades.

Reply to  Redge
October 14, 2026 2:06 am

…and that is only the people who bother to register on the census…other ways of estimating population put the figure as high as 90 million

October 13, 2026 7:32 am

I remember being surprised to read of historic battles in , I guess the area is ~ Kent or Faversham , or around there , which were along the shore at the time , but which are now miles inland , but I didn’t make a note .
Perhaps someone has some of that history .

Bill Toland
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 13, 2026 11:15 am

The coastline of Britain is constantly being remodelled by the tides. Some Roman settlements are now over a mile offshore and some are over a mile inland. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with global warming despite the efforts of the BBC and other morons who claim that coastal erosion is caused by climate change.

SxyxS
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
October 13, 2026 11:59 am

That’s all over the world.

Huge parts of Tokyo used to be sea.
Parts of San Francisco are built on a shipwreck-yard.
Columbus starting point Port Palos is as dry as the desert.

Dave Andrews
October 13, 2026 7:43 am

Perhaps this is just the Environment Agency trying to hit back at Local Authorities who often propose building on flood plains and other unsuitable sites because the only thing they see is the increased Council Tax they will get. The EA often advises against such developments but the LA,s just ignore them 🙂

claysanborn
October 13, 2026 9:36 am

“The media gets its scary headlines, insurance sharks put their premiums up and the government gets cover for its ruinous Net Zero agenda.“. And you have to love that the above is going to happen well into the future so that when absolutely nothing changes they will be held accountable to nothing. “Where’s the beef?” Put-up or shut-up; put $10 million in escrow to be held until “mid-century”. If shown to be correct by 2065, you may take the money back, with interest.
In wave theory there is constructive and destructive interference – constructive combination-enlarges two similar waves, and destructive minimizes or destroys the combination of two similar waves. (please, it’s a rough summary, I know).
In my mind, and I suggest at least subliminally in most people’s minds, media and climate alarmists cries of “we’re headed for another frozen AGW induced Ice Age/we’re all going to burn in AGW induced hell“; “the world is headed for perpetual crop killing AGW induced drought/we’re all going to drown in record AGW induced floods” cancel all the scare-mongering out so that all that I comprehend from the culprits is zero (0) – I’m completely numbed by their useless reports; they’ve canceled themselves. One would think that they would begin to realize they have lost the narrative; the dialog. But NO! Certain Billionaires have money to burn (AGW?).

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  claysanborn
October 13, 2026 12:44 pm

A valid net zero result. 🙂

KevinM
Reply to  claysanborn
October 13, 2026 9:12 pm

If they’d picked only one way to go, the jig might have been up even sooner.

Bob
October 13, 2026 4:06 pm

There is a real danger here. We have been force fed so many lies for so long that there is no reason to believe anything coming from government or academia. The sorry part is that they have become two sides of the same coin. Without government support and power academia is powerless and just another voice in the wilderness.

KevinM
Reply to  Bob
October 13, 2026 9:14 pm

Raises the question: Has there EVER been a time with reason to believe anything coming from government or academia. How long did it last? How would the audience have known?

Reply to  KevinM
October 14, 2026 2:38 am

I think politics was done with less covert activity than today, people advocated what was good for them. Now they are paid to advocate what is in fact bad for them but they are too greedy and stupid to notice how they are being manipulated.

Today’s political conflicts are all ‘opinion’ versus ‘facts’. Deckchair on Titanic stuff.

Neither side is free of this. E.g. public funded healthcare has been shown in every other country to be in the end a net benefit to the people, just not insurance companies, lawyers, drug companies and health care providers and professions…
But the arguments are couched in emotional terms. Communism, etc.

Likewise renewable energy and many ‘climate induced’ industries can be shown to be bad for the economy, but very good indeed for people involved in academic research or planting heavily subsidized windmills or ethanol-producing cornfields.

I have deliberately picked these examples because one is associated with Left thinking and the other with Right, to show that it really isn’t about left or right. That’s is a faux conflict dreamed up by political marketeers. The conflict is between emotions, greed, profit and narrow commercial interests and a rational pragmatic politics that seeks to adjust polices to the maximum benefit of the electorate as a whole, not some narrow lobby group

I believe the USA would benefit immensely from universal taxpayer funded medical care. I think the USA would benefit immensely from not a single windmill or solar panel ever being installed again/

And I hard right, or hard left?

Stupid question. Reasoned argument is not something that political rhetoric has been able to capture for itself yet

Adopting a political position is a lazy substitute for researching issues in depth, thinking them through and coming up with rational and balanced conclusions.

The problem is that today we are overwhelmed with data, mist of it false. Well man up and start to tackle it. The worst thing you can do is take someone else’s word for uit. Especially a politician

Reply to  Bob
October 14, 2026 2:19 am

I think you should dig a little deeper: Who is behind academia and government?

The recent strikes on the Russian monopoly Internet company, Yandex, have resulted in huge reductions in internet troll activity on social media channels.

Russia has been actively destabilising the West, because democracy is its greatest threat, since 1916.

Its not a question of ‘Russia funds the Librals’ or ;Russia funds Trump;.

Its both., Russia doesn’t care which set of zombies win, it only cares that the political system fails under violent protest from some minority group and forces strong measures to be taken to stop it at a high cost to democracy. So what would you do? Pump as much into pro choice as into pro life. As much into MAGA as into LBGTQ/woke movements. As much into climate alarmism as climate skepticism. Because the end goal is hatred and conflict.

Putin was winning hands down till he invaded Ukraine. Now he’s out of money, out of manpower, out of Internet and out of friends.

Watch for changes in the politics of every other country in the West. As the funding runs out and the trolls pipe down

KevinM
October 13, 2026 8:55 pm

1) Read headline “8 Million Properties at Risk of Flooding by Mid-Century –Environment Agency”
Thought: I wonder what the odds are today?
Houshold count came up easy, insurance claim count was not in my first three pages of results. Luckily the author looked it up for me – 540. 540 sounds a lot lower than 8 million.

2) Read same quote inline.
Thought: Well technically every household is always “at risk”. Some form of statistics will be involved. The quoted “agency” could not have been so lazy as to just add their projected SLR number to all standing water then add the highest recorded flood levels on top of that, right?

Sigh. I’d just once like to see one of these scientists _try_ to do some science instead of taking the easiest unthoughtful path to a catastrophic result.

October 14, 2026 2:00 am

A British Geological Society study a few years ago found that the affected coasts, mostly Norfolk, Suffolk and East Yorkshire, have been eroding at a similar rate to now for thousands of years.

Giant chunks of cliffs have been gobbled up by the sea for centuries. It has nothing to do with “climate change”.

Indeed. Whole towns have been lost. Dunwich for example. Another place I visit loses about 10 yards of sand cliffs every year. The sea is littered with dead trees that have gone with them…

Elsewhere sea has been replaced by salt marsh as silt deposition turns ports into inland towns.

Nature stops for no man.

Confucius, he say: “Winter does not stop because men dislike the cold”

index9