Carbonomics Countries no.1: Britain’s Carbon Status. Britain is a Geophysiological Disaster Zone: The Autumn 2000 Floods were proof of the Country’s Gross Unsustainability.

The second substantive issue to be explored is whether the floods were caused by the lengthy and prolonged rainfall or by a devastated environment - or a combination of the two. In other words, whether global burning or the damage to the country’s Photosynthetic capacity, or both, were to blame.

Brutland’s environment agency operates a threefold classification for floods - severe flood warnings; flood warnings, and flood watches. The first indicates imminent danger to life and property. The third is precautionary.

The october storms produced widespread flooding. On 12th october it was stated, "Across the UK there are five severe flood warnings in force, 47 flood warnings and 92 less serious flood watches." The following day it was reported that large areas of the country were inundated, "By 3pm yesterday it had issued "severe flood warnings", indicating that there was imminent danger to life and property on 10 rivers in East Sussex and Kent. There were also 47 "flood warnings" and "flood watches" on 92 rivers across England and Wales from the Isle of Wight to Yorkshire."; .. "the worst flooding in 30 years. Yesterday waters which devastated homes and businesses across the south east were subsiding. But there was more flooding in kent and flood alerts went out in the midlands. They include the rivers wreake, soar, trent, blythe, avon and severn."

The storms started on october 30th and were greeted with great fanfare, "It began overnight, mounted shrieking fury and by yesterday the worst storm in 13 years had devastated britain." On the 8th november it was stated, "Warnings of ‘imminent danger’ were issued at 39 sites across britain yesterday as heavy rain brought more floods." The floods didn’t subside until november 24th, "There were no severe flood warnings in britain yesterday for the first time in weeks, experts confirmed."

Further floods followed on december 8th, "The Environment Agency said many of the 36 flood warnings in place last night on 21 rivers could be upgraded over the next two days. A spokesman said: "Large parts of England and Wales remain under threat from flooding, as heavy rain is expected to fall on already saturated land." He said that people in areas at risk should "exercise extreme caution" when going out. "The situation could deteriorate rapidly.""

A few days later it was declared that much of the country was soaked, "The EA's Emer O'Connell said people must take heed of the flood alerts in their area, whether they were severe warnings, warnings or flood watches. The countryside and our rivers just haven't got the capacity to take much more rain water."; "The Environment Agency, which warned over the weekend that even moderate rain could trigger floods, has issued 82 flood warnings. Weekend rain has already alarmed residents along the River Thames as they watched water levels rise. A total of 60 Thames areas were on flood alert as the river spilt over its banks in Oxford on Sunday." The weather wasn’t much better after the turn of the year, "Flood warnings have been issued on 37 rivers."

"The army is now being drafted in to tackle the crisis in some regions, which is expected to worsen over the next few days. There are 83 flood warnings and nine severe flood warnings currently in place. A spokesman for The Environment Agency said: "The situation in the south of England remains serious with river levels responding quickly to the heavy rain, causing widespread surface water flooding.""

The autumn floods displayed some unusual features:-

In november, "Lake selby has been created. An area greater than lake Windermere previously the largest in england. An estimated third of a billion tonnes of water lie on a drowned landscape."

York has measured floods for centuries. In november, one commentator alleged the flooding was 14 inches higher than any flood for the last century. Another alleged these were the .. "worst floods since 1625."

Some areas of the country were flooded three times in as many weeks or months.

There was a succession of floods from the beginning of october to the middle of january the following year.

The sheer scale of the floods across much of the country was also unusual .. "the environment agency warned that virtually every area of England and Wales was under threat, save the Thames and north-west regions." Most floods are on a local scale, rarely on a regional scale, and hardly ever on a national basis. The november floods were almost on a national scale, "Fresh storms were forecast today across Britain as a record number of severe flood warnings was issued for more than 40 rivers. The environment agency issued 45 of its most serious alerts across 41 rivers - with more affected than ever before. "We are breaking records by the hour," said an agency spokeswoman. "The worst-hit areas are Kent and Sussex, the north east and the Midlands."" The house of commons’ agricultural committee issued a report stating that .. "the nation suffered the most extreme floods since records began in 1766."

What is also highly interesting and highly pertinent to this analysis is that there is evidence that, historically, flooding has been getting worse over time, "Environment Agency spokesman Archie Robertson told the bbc that flooding events were now being reported twice as often as 100 years ago."

The evidence suggests the autumn floods were unusual .. "the environment agency said the deluge so far was worse than the great flood of march 1947 when 700,000 acres were swamped .."; "Last week's flood, which has swamped more than 3,000 homes, is now more extensive than the great flood of 1947 - the most devastating of recent times - when 750,000 acres were affected." The scale of the autumn 2000 floods was greater than in 1947. In addition, the 1947 floods were over quite quickly whilst those in the autumn 2000 took place over four months. There have been few floods like these since records began. They may even have been unique in brutish history since the end of the last ice age.

The build up to the autumn 2000 floods started at the beginning of the year, "The England and Wales Precipitation series starts in 1766 and is the longest series of its kind in the world. Spring and early summer in 2000 were unsettled which severely hampered the drying out of the soil. .. the wettest September since 1981 with 133 mm." The spring and the summer had been wet which kept the country’s soils wet. September was a wet month which saturated soils over much of the country and thus helped to create the conditions for flooding in early october. The floods in october helped to create the conditions for the november floods and these, in turn, created the conditions for the december floods. Each storm or downpour helped to saturate the soil and increase the possibility that the next downpour, no matter how light, would cause flooding. In the end, across the country, the soil, or what was left of it, was saturated with water and could not contain heavy rainfall. The met office argued, "This is key to understanding the reasons behind the recent floods; could the answer lie in the soil?"

The country’s life sustaining processes were simply unable to cope with the massive quantities of rainfall that were released by the succession of mild storms that hit the country during the autumn 2000. It has been suggested there are two possible explanations for the floods: firstly, they were caused by massive quantities of rainfall overwhelming a sound environment or, secondly, they were caused by the dire state of the country’s Photosynthetic capacity. Unfortunately, just as the record of rainfall during the floods does not prove the rain was caused by global burning, so the floods do not prove whether the Earth’s life sustaining processes in this country, i.e. its Photosynthetic capacity, were in a good or bad condition. The only way of assessing this issue is to change tact. Since it is not possible to deduce from the floods the state of the country’s environment, the only option is to explore the state of the country’s environment and deduce from this whether it would have helped, or hindered, the flooding.

It has been estimated that virtually none of the country’s ancient Forests still exist, "Native forests, which once covered 80% of Britain, have dwindled to about 1.5%. Virtually no primary forest remains ..." Even worse, only 10% of the uk is covered in Forests, "Britain is one of the most deforested countries in the world in terms of natural forests." The situation, however, is much worse than this might suggest.

• all the Vegetation between the Trees is removed;

• the use of tractors and other heavy equipment causes soil compaction;

• the tracks built between the Trees to provide access for vehicles and the roads laid down throughout the area to help with transportation, provide channels for water to escape Tree plantations.

It needs to be stressed that although some of this drainage in Tree plantations is inadvertent, it is welcomed by Tree pharmers who attempt to drain as much water as possible off the plantations to ensure that utility vehicles and tractors are able to inspect, treat, manage, log, and process, the Trees. It was pointed out above that fred pearce does not believe that Forests play any role in preventing flooding - see note 1. However, he quotes one author who clearly explains why Tree plantations and synthetic, recreational Forests play little role in combating flooding, "Calder says recent research suggests that the critical factor for protecting soils from erosion is not the amount of trees but the amount of ground vegetation. Thick scrub or even a crop of wheat is often as good, if not better, than a commercial forest plantation in which weeds and other undergrowth are removed. Says Calder: "It is often the management activities associated with forestry - cultivation, drainage, road construction, soil compaction during logging - which are more likely to influence flood response than the presence or absence of the forests themselves." On the Philippine island of Palawan, logging increased erosion only marginally, "but the conversion of uncut forest to road surface increased erosion by a factor of 260"." This means that u.k. Forests are virtually incapable of storing any substantial quantities of water.

The second most important geophysiological damage contributing to the floods is the drainage of Peatlands, Marshes, and Swamps - although the scale of this change is nothing like as significant as deforestation. Swamps, like Forests, absorb large amounts of water which is gradually, and slowly, released over a period of months. Both of them act as natural flood control agents.

A third deformation of the environment contributing to the floods was urbanization. Large areas of the country are now covered in tarmac or cement making it impossible for the soil to absorb rainwater. It has been estimated that in england 15% of the country is currently urbanized and that .. "By the middle of next century, one-fifth of England would be urbanized ..." What adds to the damage caused by urbanization is that huge numbers of houses have been built on flood plains. Once geophysiological phenomena like Forests and Swamps have been destroyed, and then covered by urban areas, rainwater pours straight off the tarmac into local streams. If the rainfall has been torrential enough this causes rivers to swell and often to flood.

The fourth type of damage to the country’s geophysiology which contributed to the floods was the spread of land drainage. Drainage systems are an integral, if virtually invisible, part of urban areas. They have also been used to ‘reclaim’ Marshes and Swamps and previously forested areas. Most pharms, Tree plantations, and even golf course, also have extensive drainage systems. As a consequence, a huge area of the country is now linked to the national drainage system. This network is far more extensive than the country’s road system - if only because most roads are also part of the drainage system. The continual expansion of the national drainage network means that more and more water is shifted off the land at a faster and faster rate. A significant portion of the rain which falls on the country is channelled immediately into streams so that the heavier, and more prolonged, the rainfall, the greater the surges of water reaching rivers, the greater the prospect of flooding.

The national drainage system is in some ways just like the country’s road network. In effect, it is an underground network which carries water rather than cars. What is currently happening in the country’s drainage network is exactly the same as that on the country’s roads. Whilst too many cars on the roads lead to car jams, too much water in the drainage system leads to floods. The problem in both cases is exactly the same - increasing numbers of oomans are increasingly imposing their will on the Earth’s life sustaining processes to generate increasing quantities of wealth - even though they understand nothing about such processes and care even less.

Paradoxically greens, especially those of the ecologist/conservationist, land-owning aristocratic, charles windsor variety, are also impoverishing the country’s geophysiological health and thus helping to provoke floods. This is happening for a variety of reasons.

All over the country greens, and green organizations, are intensively managing nature reserves, conservation areas, sites of special scientific interest, etc, to protect unique habitats. The vast majority of these habitats can be preserved only by suppressing the growth of Trees. As a consequence, they possess limited forms of Phytomass which is much less capable of absorbing and retaining rainfall than Woods or Forests.

Greens are also involved in protecting game reserves which, like nature reserves, can be preserved only by suppressing the growth of Trees thus decreasing their ability to extract Carbon from the atmosphere and to retain water. The north york moors, for example, are maintained as Heathland by the aristocratic-conservation-hunting-tribalistic fraternity rather than being allowed to revert back to what they would be if these greens stopped acting like demented oomano-imperialists. There was widespread flooding around north yorkshire - although, admittedly, much of the land around selby is also used for prairie pharming.

Many of the nature reserves protected by greens around the country are former agricultural habitats or habitats shaped by traditional pharming. Over the millennia, Wildlife adapted to the spread of pharming across the country and many species thrived by specialising to exploit the conditions created by traditional pharming. The reason for the focus on preserving agricultural habitats is that many greens are either pharmers or supporters of organic pharming. They are nostalgic about earlier pharming practices and want to preserve as much of the country’s agricultural traditions as they can. They thus seek to protect pharming habitats not merely for their unique Biodiversity but as a debt of honour to their allies in the natural world. These agricultural nature reserves are like living museums of the conditions associated with traditional farming before small scale farmers were swept away by the onset of modern, industrialized pharming. Today, former pharmer conservationists pharm subsidies from the government to preserve samples of these agricultural habitats with their highly specialized species. However, whilst these conservation sites help to preserve Biodiversity on the brink of extinction, they are virtually bereft of Phytomass so they play virtually no role in combating either global burning or floods.

The city of oxford is a good example of this farming conservationist ‘do-away-with-the-Trees’ madness. There are many green areas dotted around the city. One of them used to be an almost impenetrable, waterlogged, Wood but when the city council suddenly discovered green issues it designated the Wood as a nature reserve, and promptly chopped down the Trees in order to restore the agricultural habitat that had existed there in the 19th century. The area had been used to grow Reeds for the city’s Reed industry. The Reed industry in the city no longer exists so there is no one to come along and cut down the Reeds which then become infested with Weeds! The return of the Reeds has not been proceeding smoothly because the area, prior to the autumn storms, had been drying out as a result of global burning. More and more of the remaining Trees are having to be chopped down to encourage the waterlogging of the area - the Trees suck water out of the ground and dry out the area - although it is not known what the impact will be of the Reeds losing the shade provided by the Trees.

Much of oxford also lies in a flood plain. Although a large part of the city’s flood plain has been built on, there are many areas which have been kept free from so-called de-velopment - whether this is due to the university’s romantic culture, colleges’ desires to protect their land holdings, the fear that de-velopments in the city would boost flooding downstream, or because these areas are so beautiful they have become a huge tourist attraction, is not known. Unfortunately, these green areas are not in their natural state i.e. Forests which could help to reduce flooding in the city. They are used for grazing slave Animals - they are in effect the university’s own private pharms. The city, and county, councils have a number of green councillors all of whom blame global burning and the floods on Carbon emissions from fossil fuels so they do not advocate Reforesting the city’s flood plains to combat global burning or flooding. They too believe in living in harmony with nature! Quite how they align this belief with disinterest, even opposition, to allowing these area to revert back to their natural state is not known. They prefer instead to support the Animal slavery industry which has produced some of the planet’s most artificial Animals which are able to survive only because they are artificially inseminated by oomans. To most greens, the term ‘natural’ is equated with anything that organic pharmers like to do.

Oxford’s decimation of the country’s Photosynthesizers doesn’t just stop at the creation of agricultural heritage museums or meadows for Animals which are increasingly creating oomans’ in their own image. The city prides itself on being the originator of the world’s first park and ride scheme. There were so many cars driving into its tiny city centre that something had to be done to stop the city from grinding to a halt. So they started covering the outskirts of the city in tarmac in order to reduce the number of cars coming into the city centre. However, as car numbers continued to rise, more and more park and ride schemes had to be introduced until eventually the only option left was to ban these poisonous mobile incinerators from coming into the city centre. Once greens started being elected to the city council they rapidly associated themselves with these ‘green’ measures. There are currently three park and ride areas in oxford - there would have been a fourth one but during the autumn 2000 floods it disappeared from view so councillors gave up trying to include it in their plans.

In the early 1990s green protestors opposed the tory government’s insane road building programme but, having no understanding of how the Earth works and no appreciation of the country’s appalling Carbon status, condoned the construction of green car parks, ‘park and ride’ sites, on the outskirts of cities to reduce traffic going into city centres. They believed global burning is caused solely by the release of Carbon emissions rather than the decimation of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity so it was perfectly acceptable for them to sacrifice these life sustaining processes for the sake of reducing Carbon emissions. It is remarkable that greens could be so unscientific and so willing to sacrifice green areas. It has to be asked how greens can call themselves green when they support the destruction of green areas?

The danger of the belief that global burning is caused solely by the release of Carbon emissions is clear from the three above examples - it allows greens to believe they can freely decimate the Earth’s life support system without destabilizing the climate and that they can use the destruction of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity to reduce Carbon emissions. They can then parade themselves as environmental heroes for saving the, rapidly deteriorating, planet!! The greenless greens are Earth rapists. Greens use the tactic of focusing on reductions in Carbon emissions and condoning the destruction of the Earth’s life sustaining processes firstly to allow pharmers to carry out mass deforestation with impunity and secondly, to allow themselves to create green park and ride schemes so they can be seen as being environmentally friendly to hordes of eco-nazis panzer drivers. There are, unfortunately, many other ways in which the greenless greens promote this tactic - some of which will be seen in the following sections.

In the autumn 2000 the city was afflicted by flooding but the damage caused never seemed likely to push the city into bankruptcy, "Recent flooding has left oxford city council with a bill for £27,000. Last month, severe flooding damaged homes in the botley road, south hinksey and abingdon road areas." However, there are many reasons for arguing that the floods in the city were exacerbated by the city’s green policies. By keeping the city’s green areas in an artificial state of deformity rather than allowing them to revert back to their natural state, green councillors are helping to inflict floods upon the city.

Ironically enough, another deformation of the country’s life sustaining processes which contributed to the autumn floods, was hi-tech, flood defence systems. These are supported by both environmentalists and Earth-rapists - which is by no means the only occasion on which these two, supposedly antagonistic, groups share common policies. The main achievement of flood construction projects is the construction of floods i.e. they increase flooding. British people have beaten the Earth’s life sustaining processes in this country to a pulp and seem to believe they ought to give the Earth another good thrashing by covering it in flood construction schemes. Flood construction projects exacerbate global burning and they exacerbate floods by shifting water to areas not obliterated by flood defence fortifications. In other words, they boost flooding both indirectly, through global burning and, directly, through shifting water to vulnerable areas.

Although the following point may be so obvious as to incite readers’ contempt, the fact remains that flood construction projects can’t make flood waters disappear. All they do is to push water more rapidly downstream. But what this means is that the land downstream becomes not only more and more vulnerable to flooding but vulnerable to more and more dangerous levels of flooding because of the increasing quantities of water they will shift downstream. This happened in germany although, excuse the tease, in the reverse direction! In the early 1990s, high tides in the north sea led to flooding deep inside germany because vast stretches of rivers had been lined with flood fortifications which pushed the tidal waters further and further inland. Eventually the water reached a point where there were no more defences and spilt over onto the land. The choice which presented itself at this point was either to cover the entire river with flood defence systems and then watch water from the north sea charge through poland on its way to russia or to demolish some of the flood fortifications and designate areas as flood plains. They choose the latter - which goes to show the brutish are far worse eco-nazis than the germans.

An example of this flood displacement phenomena occurred during the november 2000 floods in britain. In the 1980s york erected a flood construction barrier, "Following serious flooding in 1982, a barrier was put up on the south-east side of the city in 1986." The november 2000 flood was 14 inches higher than previous floods over the last century but even though a large area of the city was flooded, the flood construction barrier prevented the flooding of the city centre, "In York though - where water levels are now 15 feet above average - emergency planners claim they have successfully contained the swelling river ouse." The effect of the barrier, however, was to push even more water downstream where it imperilled other urban areas, "Two thousand people were evacuated from barlby and selby amid residents’ claims they had been sacrificed to save york - a charge denied by emergency services. Soldiers had to stop sandbagging in barlby as the ouse rose." If this problem sounds reminiscent of the problems on the country’s motorways it should not be surprising. Efforts made to overcome traffic snarl-ups in one part of the network just lead to even bigger snarlups further down the line. Hardly surprising then that in a society heavily under the influence of motorists, especially the lunatic, moronic, motoring correspondents now found in all sections of the media, the commonest solution for preventing floods is exactly the same as that suggested for preventing traffic jams.

The conclusion that has been reached about flood construction projects in america is that they don’t work. In the case of the biggest flood control system, the americans decided to deconstruct many of the flood barriers on the mississippi river because the river could not be controlled. It has been concluded, "Over the past 60 years or so, US$25 billion has been spent on dams and embankments nationally (but) there has been no reduction in deaths from flooding, and economic losses have doubled .. The main reason for this is that there has been increased development on floodplains. Over the last 200 years, around 475,000 square kilometres of wetlands have been drained. These wetlands traditionally formed a buffer between the rivers and other low-lying lands, and their loss has meant that floodwaters became concentrated further downstream causing the floods ..."

The devastation of britain’s Photosynthetic capacity i.e. its life sustaining processes, suggests it must have been a major contributor to the autumn 2000 floods. Throughout the country’s entire history, its Photosynthetic capacity has probably never been as threadbare as it is today. The deformation of the british countryside has not merely contributed to global burning, it has created almost ideal conditions for flooding. If a group of eco-nazis got together to work out what they could do to turn the country into an enormous flood zone they couldn’t have done a better job than successive british governments acting in collusion with the pharming industry. Perhaps the most accurate analogy to describe the country’s barely-existing life-sustaining processes, is that britain’s environment resembles a vast frying pan covered in lard in one of the country’s cheap motorway cafes specializing in traditional english breakfasts for imminent heart attack victims.

It is impossible to tell from the facts about the autumn 2000 flooding whether the biggest contributor was the unique rainfall, the decimation of the country’s sustainability or a combination of both. The most likely explanation is the latter. The rainfall, and the flooding, were unique over the last couple of centuries and the state of the Earth’s life sustaining processes in britain i.e. its Photosynthetic capacity, was so appalling it could not have failed to have seriously exacerbated the floods. Without the deformation of the country’s Photosynthesizers, the floods would not have been anything like as bad as they were.

It should not be surprising if both global burning and the tatty nature of the country’s Photosynthetic capacity were responsible for the autumn 2000 floods. After all, these two phenomena are intimately related. The decimation of the country’s Photosynthetic capacity contributes to global burning as well as making the country far more vulnerable to the flooding effects of global burning. The decimation of the country’s Photosynthesizers contributes to both the cause and effects of global burning. However, in this chapter, the contribution made to global burning by the decimation of the british countryside is not discussed.

The explanation for the autumn 2000 floods seems to change over time. It is easy to suspect that the deformation of the country’s landscape was the major factor in the october floods given that the rainfall was not historically unique, "The October storms were not extreme in terms of intensity or rainfall amounts, but caused floods due to their accumulated effects." However, when the october floods were succeeded by the november floods and then by the december floods, it began to seem as if the major cause of the floods was global burning - assuming for the moment that global burning was responsible for the rainfall. The longer the storms went on, the greater the quantities of rainfall, the more it seemed as if global burning was primarily to blame for the floods. It is likely that at the end of october the ground was so saturated that even moderate amounts of rainfall would have produced floods. The fact that massive quantities of rainfall fell in november and december just added to the scale of the flooding. But the rainfall was so heavy during these two months it may have produced flooding even without the ground being waterlogged by the october floods.

The autumn floods seem to be a joint product of global burning and the decimation of the countryside but not in the sense that they both contributed equally, to the same extent, throughout the autumn. It is much more likely that at the beginning, the decimation of the countryside was the most important factor, whilst the rest of the time both factors were important. It is not possible, however, to prove whether global burning contributed more, or less, to the floods than the decimation of the country’s life sustaining processes - just as it is not yet possible to prove that global burning was responsible for the rainfall.

The succession of floods in october, november, and december, (also january and february the following year) suggests that even if the country’s life support system had been sound, i.e. covered in Forests, it would have been difficult to absorb such vast quantities of water without flooding. Given such quantities of rainfall, it is likely there would have been flooding even in the past when the country’s Forest cover, and water retaining powers, were much greater but it would not have been on the same scale as happened in the autumn 2000. The country’s biological impoverishment made the floods far worse than they would have been.

Having outlined the major types of damage inflicted on the country’s landscape which contributed to the autumn 2000 floods, it important to highlight the responsibilities of the pharming industry for the scale of this deformation. The pharming industry is by far and away the biggest contributor to the decimation of the country’s Photosynthetic capacity. Given that the destruction of Photosynthesizers contributes to global burning, much of this analysis could also be used in calculating the pharming industry’s contribution to climate change. However, this section is not concerned with such a contribution - only the industry’s role in increasing the country’s vulnerability to flooding.

The pharming industry is by far and away the biggest cause of the deformation of the country’s landscape. There is no other industry in the country which causes anything like as much geophysiological damage as this industry. Firstly, pharmers have cut down the country’s Forests to make way for pastureland or cropland which means the land absorbs only a tiny fraction of the rainfall it did before. Most of the deforestation that has taken place in this country was not only carried out by pharmers but is currently being maintained by pharmers i.e. the grazing of slave Animals preventing the regrowth of Forests.

The proportion of land dedicated to pharming in this country is colossal. According to the central intelligence agency’s estimates 25% of u.k. land is used for growing crops; Forests and Woodland cover 10%; but nearly half, 46%, is used for pastureland. These figures may be misleading about the scale of the land devoted to the Slave Animal industry since many of the crops grown are used to feed quadrupeds not bipeds. Overall, then, a huge proportion of the country’s land is dedicated to the pharming industry either directly in terms of slave grazing or growing crops to feed slave Animals.

Quite amazingly for such a small country, britain has the world’s biggest Sheep industry, "Brutland has a Sheep population of more than 20 million, worth £1.2 billion a year to farmers.."; "There are 42 million sheep in the uk." It has more Sheep than the united states and possesses 30% of the Sheep in the european community, "The u.k. is the e.c.’s biggest Sheep meat producer (about 350,000 tones in 1993), followed by spain (250,000) and france (80,000)."; "Of the 16 million sheep slaughtered last year, 12.4 million (78 per cent) were between the ages of five and 12 months, according to the Ministry of Agriculture. Britain has 86,364 sheep farmers, by far the largest number in the EU. Of these, 45,295 are in England, 16,348 in Wales, 14,598 in Scotland and 10,123 in Northern Ireland."

The reason why such a tiny country has such vast numbers of slave Animals is because it can buy crops from all around the world to feed them. It runs one of the most intensive Animal slavery industries in the world - the price of which is not merely a devastated environment but an extraordinarily high rate of heart diseases and heart attacks amongst brutish carnivores, and, widescale poverty and immiserization amongst millions of third world people who have had their land stolen by the ruling pharming elite to feed slave Animals consumed by rich consumers. This matter will be discussed again later.

Pharmers adoption of prairie pharming also causes ecological devastation which contributes significantly to flooding. It leads to soil erosion which diminishes the land’s ability to retain as much water as it did before. It is a common misconception that pharmers are worried about soil erosion. Most of them are happy to see their soul disappearing on the winds. These days all they need to grow crops is a minimal layer of soil which can soak up crude oil products. They don’t want thick, heavy waterlogged soils because this makes the use of tractors difficult and expensive. In fact if pharmers had the choice, they would dig up their soil, dump it in the sea, and cover their land in a couple of inches of sand to make it easier for tractors to plant, manage, and harvest, crops.

So what, it might be asked, has this got to do with the slave pharming industry and flooding? The fact is that most crops in this country are grown for quadrupeds not bipeds, "Animals do not produce food. They waste it. It takes about 30lb of Cattle feed to produce 1lb of beef. The total consumption of cereals per head of the population each year is one tonne. But only 155lb is eaten directly, mainly in the form of bread. The rest is eaten by pharm animals. In stark contrast, the grain consumed per head in the developing countries averages about 420lb each year. 3,000 pharm Animals are slaughtered in brutland every minute of every working day. In britain only 8% of the cultivated land is used to grow food for direct human consumption. Most of the remaining 92% is used to grow food for Animal consumption."

Prairie pharmland acts in a similar way to tarmaced areas. Pharmers deliberately try to make their land as dry as possible to make it is easier for tractors to use. The smoother the land, the more that water runs off the surface rather than soaking into the ground. The smooth surface of prairieland causes rainfall to skate over it like water over a tarmaced car park, "Mr Spence said: "The run off of water from bare fields is 10-100 times greater than from a field with grass. Because of the switch to winter cereals we have lost the big plough furrows that used to collect the water.""

John boardman has shown convincingly that over the last three decades the spread of prairie pharming has led to increasing numbers of localized floods which have damaged the homes of residents living close to pharmers’ fields, "There is no river nearby, but last week the Brighton suburb of Bevendean was drying out after a flood. Carpets, sodden furniture, washing machines and freezers were being thrown into skips, mud hosed out of houses. People knew what to do; it had happened before. Four small dams meant to protect houses filled and overflowed. Muddy water, run-off from fields planted with winter cereals, had flowed down a normally dry valley and into the houses."; "Over the hill from Bevendean is the well-known vineyard of Breaky Bottom. The farmhouse, built in 1827 in a dry valley was not flooded until 1976 and then again in 1982, 1987 and last week. The flood frequency has increased since the slopes up-valley began to be cultivated with cereals.." This increase of flooding could be due to increasing rainfall as a result of global burning but the evidence suggests that there is a more mundane explanation, "There is a pattern to the flooding: almost all incidents occur in the months of October and November; all involve run-off from fields prepared for, or sown with winter wheat. The fields are bare and even moderate amounts of rainfall result in muddy flows leaving the fields by way of gullies. Farmers often claim that these are "freak events" but this is nonsense - one farmer making this claim was asked when the previous case of flooding of the nearby village was, and he replied "last year"." Localized flooding caused by pharmers is an increasing problem across the country, "This is not only a South Downs problem, in other parts of the country where houses are adjacent to farmland the incidence of flooding has increased since the adoption of winter cereals in the 70s. Particularly at risk is the Isle of Wight, Devon, Somerset, Kent and parts of the east and west midlands."; "Under grass there was no threat as there was little run-off and no erosion. A series of October floods in 1987 resulted in considerable damage to house and vines and a long-running legal dispute with undisclosed damages being paid to Peter Hall at Breaky Bottom. The case sought to prove that cultivation of steep slopes for wheat constituted a predictable risk of downvalley flooding; that it was done in the knowledge of that risk; that nothing had been done to mitigate that risk; and that land use and farming practices were mainly responsible rather than heavy rain. Central to the case, and others like it, is the assertion that it is how, when and where the land is cultivated, not the fact that it rains hard, that is the main cause of flood damage. Farmers thus have a responsibility to manage land wisely which includes being aware of down valley risk of flooding."

Over the last few decades there has been a quiet build up in the number of localized floods caused by pharmers, "Between 1976 and 1993, 60 incidents of flooding of properties occurred in the Brighton area. A substantial number will have been added in 2000. At Rottingdean, 3km from Bevendean, in October 1987, around £400,000 of damage was done to about 30 houses, half of which was borne by household insurers."

As a result of this analysis boardman is sceptical about placing sole blame for the autumn 2000 floods on global burning, "Yesterday John Boardman, head of the environmental change unit at Oxford University, played down the influence of global warming, saying that the recent floods were caused largely by changes in farm practices. Extensive cultivation of winter wheat sown in September, leaving the land bare in the wettest parts of the year, together with overstocking of sheep on the uplands which leads to erosion, is the cause of much flooding, he added."

The house of commons’ agriculture committee released a report which more or less blamed pharmers and the maffia for the previous three months flooding. Its conclusions were not to the liking of the pharmer-loving government who ensured the report was published a few days before the yuletide celebrations in order to minimize any publicity over the report and to prevent any discussion of the issues its raised. The maffia was supposed to be a reformed body but it is still acting in the same corrupt way as it has ever done so. The report condemns the maffia for protecting pharmers’ interests against those of all other sections of society, "The floods which ravaged Britain this autumn could partly be blamed on the Ministry of Agriculture, a cross-party group of MPs ruled yesterday, because of its failure to impose rules on farmers to prevent flooding. A Commons environment select committee report issued a "grave condemnation" of ministers for failing to implement an EU directive requiring the risk of flooding to be assessed if farmers wished to plough up their uncultivated grassland. Without such rules, farmers have ploughed up unsuitable land leading excess water to run off the fields, explained Andrew Bennett, the committee's chairman."; "Ministers failed to do enough to stop this year’s devastating floods, mps said last night. A commons committee condemned the ministry of agriculture for failing to bring in regulations to prevent farmers using damaging agricultural techniques. The all-party committee criticized the ministry for delaying for 15 years regulations which would have measured whether intensive farming methods had encouraged flooding. The mps said the delay may have been a "contributory cause" of floods."

The national pharmers union protested vehemently about what it regarded as a gross, unfair accusation, "Ben gill, of the nfu, said it was "ridiculous" to say that farming had made a major contribution to flooding. He said that most flood problems were caused by water running off from tarmac, concrete and developed land." Three quarters of the country are covered in pharmland for the Animal slavery industry and yet it is urban dwellers who are to blame! Ben gill is one of the world’s greatest denialists. For well over a decade this man denied every single allegation about the threat posed by bse. Bse a threat to oomans? No, never, impossible. Beef? Safe as houses. Absolutely safe. If denialism ever becomes an olympic sport he’d surely become one of the greatest denialists known in the civilized world. He’s a pathological denialist of the first order. His appreciation of science makes scientific whaling seem as if it’s at the front line in scientific research. And how many times has he apologized for pharmers’ responsibilities for murdering nearly 100 people as a result of bse being spread by the country’s pharmers? The mundi club has never heard him apologize for these murders - he’s been much too busy demanding more and more subsidies for more and more absurd reasons e.g. the depreciation of the currency.

In a desperate bid to extinguish any criticisms that would arise from the agricultural committee’s publication, the corrupt, murderous, devious crooks in the maffia rushed out a publication offering advice to pharmers about how to avoid floods, "The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) have recently published a series of advisory booklets for farmers on "Controlling Soil Erosion". The "soil code" also devotes several pages to the risks of run-off and erosion. The risk of damage to properties and roads is clearly recognised, and farmers are told how to assess that risk. They are advised that if the problems are "regular and severe" to seek further advice and to consider switching to grass. The approach is voluntary, but at least the advice is freely available and farmers cannot claim ignorance." Not a single member of this lying, corrupt, mass murdering, fraternity has been sacked over the spread of bse which has killed nearly 200,000 members of Cattlekind and nearly 100 oomanocruels. What a degenerate country! It is hardly surprising this country has given rise to two degenerative brain diseases given the degenerate nature of the maffia, successive governments, and the country.

It is not merely the spread of bare fields and desert/prairie pharming that is causing problems. In many areas the increased run off from fields is being channelled away through drainage systems. Drainage is an integral part of urban areas. But the same is now also true of pharmland. Most pharmland, especially in england, now has a drainage system. The area of pharmland which is connected to the country’s national drainage network is far greater than the area of urban drainage, "Since the war the drainage system has been geared to get water off the fields faster. It has led to increased property damage.""

It may be surprising to many people but, so great has been the importance of flood control measures to pharmers, that responsibility for flood defences used to be the prerogative of the maffia - although it is believed many of these responsibilities have now moved to the department of the environment. The close relationship between pharming, and the flood control industry, suggests the scale of the drainage that has been installed across the countryside must have been massive. The maffia’s responsibilities for preventing floods has meant it has been able to ensure that the installation of flood construction systems has benefited pharmers rather than any other section of society - let alone the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. In many cases, pharmers have benefited at the expense of other sections of society.

Pharmers are responsible for draining large areas of the country’s Swamps to create pastureland or croplands.

The wholesale disruption and devastation that both organic, and industrial, pharmers have inflicted on the country’s water cycle stretches back over the last five millennia - in other words, since the start of the agriculture. But these changes picked up speed after the second world war and accelerated over the last couple of decades of the 20thc. Most of the country’s Forests disappeared 4-2,000 years ago but the cutting down of Hedges took place primarily in the last half of the century. It is commonly believed the country’s Hedges disappeared decades ago but the fact is that Hedgerow destruction is still happening on a massive scale, "In just one three-year period in the early 1990s, 54,000 km of hedgerows were lost across England and Wales." Then pharmers, who tout themselves as guardians of the countryside, turn around and say they don’t understand why the country’s Bird population is plummeting!! The spread of prairie pharming, and the installation of a drainage network over large areas of pharmland, is a recent development. To repeat, "Since the war the drainage system has been geared to get water off the fields faster. It has led to increased property damage."" Similarly, the draining of Swamps is also relatively modern.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/

3.3: What Caused the Autumn 2000 Floods?