Talk:North Sea flood of 2013

Weather: Non-tropical / Floods Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Rename

I suggest to rename North Sea flood of 2013 to North Sea flood of 2013-2014. Other suggestions? Watti Renew (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funds

[1] English media discuss the funds to tackle the flood prevention and compensation of the flood cost. Please explain. 1) According to Nicholas Stern flood is a consequence of the climate change. [2][3] 2) The price of carbon means in my opinion that all the external costs of carbon (i.e. negative results of climate change) must ne allocated to those who are responsible. So the cost of this flooding should be funded not by the British Government or insurance companies (more or less taxpayers) but by the British energy companies, construction companies and those who are responsible for the changes in the land use in Britain last 30-50 years. 3) Bought or politically accepted emission rights can not sanctify the present development which will end in the huge ecological and irreversible changes. The price of carbon can not be the sale of indulgences. Watti Renew (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial revolution

I have been told that I should not eat meat, I should have max 18 degrees at home and use only bicycle. At the same time in Sochi new hotels and roads are build for tourists for two weeks use only, tourists travel by air for fun, sportsmen/women require expensive constructions for their hobbies. This is not reasonable. If we would stop tourism, I could live in 19 degrees, and take a bus. If politicians would use video negotiation and tourists watch sport at home we could save energy. If my government would build wind power and solar power and nice homes, we would not want to escape abroad for vacation from our unpleasent homes. Tourism is a huge climate change contributor. Air travel, hotels and restaurants should pay their share of the external costs of the climate change. Watti Renew (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I use wind power, why should I pay higher insurance costs in benefit for coal power users flooding costs? [4] Watti Renew (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not self-evident that all insurance companies are neutral in respect to warming emissions. What if they make business with dirty emissions and also selling insurances to protect against the emissions? Watti Renew (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

States should collect sufficient funds from all the polluters including at leat 30 years past emissions and distribute this to all victims. Emissions are not resticted to the present statistics but include e.g. aviotion, peat soil changes and construction. Cement production is a large contributor. Watti Renew (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]