3 ms·
>I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse.
by midoridensha 4y ago
>I'm not saying it's not an unprecedented disaster. It certainly is. The country I'm from (the Netherlands) might mostly disappear. But it's not an apocalypse. There will still be places where people can live.
The Netherlands will be fine if they just dam up the North Sea. The main problems with this are 1) the English Channel is a huge trade route and damming it (without a way of passing ships through) would destroy the EU economy, and 2) Russia would be very hostile to anything that restricts their access to the ocean from the Baltic.
- wkat4242 4y agoI could imagine damming off the channel. But on the north side? It's way too wide there. It would be shorter to just dam around the entire country. But the cost would be extreme. Shipping access isn't a major issue though. A dam can have locks.
- midoridensha 4y agoIt's not too wide: the Netherlands actually did a study on this. It is a pretty extreme proposal of course, but it is possible. It would have some big benefits, not just to Netherlands, but all the countries around it, because all of them (UK, France, Germany, Belgium) stand to lose a lot of land to rising sea levels. Instead, with this dam, they could actually create a LOT more new land in what's now the North Sea. Remember, much of the North Sea used to be dry land (we call it "Doggerland" now), only about 8000 years ago, and had human settlements. I think shipping could still be an issue. Sure, dams can have locks, but the sheer amount of ship traffic there might be difficult. Maybe they should build new some ports and use freight rail to move cargo around.