The above YouTube and comments posted in February this year displays some images from the UK hot summer of 1976 showing people collecting water in buckets and signs placed from water companies to save water.
So far the historic data and reasoning is that 2012 will again be another very dry year for the South of England and we will again see similar images and warnings, but with one big difference, if I am not mistaken, and that is a full assault on the "Climate Realists" who have stood up to the "man made" climate change industry.
The message against us will be something like...."man made" co2 is responsible for the UK drought and water shortage and if we don't do something now we will expect more of the same.....it will also be put forward as further proof that the world is heating up, and they told us so.... etc. So far the voice of reason has not been vocal enough against such outbursts. The reason as to why the UK is in such a mess about the expected drought of 2012 has nothing to do with the two recent dry winters, it's to do with bad management of the water supply.
One of our very own "Climate Realists" Christopher Booker in a recent article highlighted the following:
In two weeks’ time, millions of people in southern and eastern England will face a £1,000 fine if they use a hosepipe. So, as our water bills continue to rise faster than inflation (mine has risen by 10 per cent this year), many people will get even less water for their money. But before we blame this just on the unusual winter drought, a few figures are in order.
Since our water industry was privatised 20 years ago (it is now largely foreign-owned), our total storage capacity, 520 billion gallons, has barely increased. Due to drought, our reservoirs are only 90 per cent full, a shortfall of 50 billion gallons. Yet in the Thames Water area alone, more than 50 billion gallons a year is lost in leaks – fully a third of the total that the Australian-owned company delivers to its customers.
So where have all those tens of billions of pounds that we have handed to the water companies gone, if they haven't been spent on increasing our water storage, over a period when the population rose by 10 per cent, or on mending leaks? (In Holland, where water is still state-owned, only 6 per cent is lost in leaks.)
One important factor, which is usually hidden from us, I was able to reveal in this column on May 13, 2007, when I reported on a letter sent by the relevant minister, Lord Rooker, to Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who had asked in the Lords for an update on how much we had spent complying with EU water directives. Rooker replied that we had spent £65 billion on meeting the requirements of three directives on water quality, but only £14 billion on “infrastructure”, such as improving water storage and cutting down on leaks.
So a large part of the reason why we pay more for less is that we are compelled to put the needs of complying with EU directives above those of the British people who pay the bills. But isn’t it interesting that such information isn’t made generally available, and only slipped out thanks to a letter to a member of the House of Lords from a minister who must have hoped that it wouldn’t get any publicity?
I have also pointed out that Piers Corbyn has NOT been consulted nor approached about his Summer forecast to assist on this matter, so the scene is set to be against those who do not agree with "man made" climate change, as we are to blame for the UK Drought of 2012 i.e if we did not get in the way of their argument there would not be a drought going on in the UK!
Look out for the fight ahead, it will be one they must win...GR
Summer sun and it's only March. Looking at his parched garden, MAX HASTINGS ponders the foolishness of Britain's politicians and planners
Frankly, if I hear one more thoughtless voice say ‘lovely day, isn’t it?’ I shall scream.
One does not make foolish remarks like that in the midst of the Gobi Desert, or stumbling through Sahara sands under a broiling sun — and that is the way our own sceptred but tragically dried-up isle is heading.
Yes, it is wonderfully warm for the time of year; I have been playing tennis every evening as if this was a balmy June.
But take a look a yard beyond the patio or motorway: across most of southern and central England, the soil is hard and cracking. Some plants already look distressed. Many more will soon do likewise, even mature trees.
March is not yet over but, after the driest winter on record, seven English water companies are next week due to impose hosepipe bans.
Chalk streams are unprecedentedly low, though commercial abstraction continues unchecked.
Birds and amphibians face a torrid spring and summer, as do millions of gardeners.
Far from wishing to see the sun beaming stupidly down on us, we need deluges of almost biblical proportions to restore the balance of nature, and there is no sign that we shall get them.
A combination of climate change, extravagant water use and poor economy threatens not merely Britain’s environment, but that of large parts of the world, with deep and lasting damage.
The story is familiar: during mankind’s Age of Abundance, now emphatically ended, we squandered water and took wholly inadequate steps to protect it as a resource.
On this overcrowded island particularly, we have designed everything we built for the past two centuries with a view to making rainwater flow as quickly as possible into the sea.
We have drained swamps and wetlands, laid countless millions of square feet of concrete and tar, which rain runs off quickly, with no chance to seep into the soil and refill aquifers.
Even in dry winters, we still get enough water — if only we could hang onto it. But we do not, and the result is the fine, dry mess in which we find ourselves.
Most of us drink only a couple of litres of water a day, but baths and washing machines boost average consumption to 150 litres, doubled by those with significant gardens and power-washers
In hot Australia, daily suburban consumption rises to 350 litres, in the U.S. to 400.
But the largest consumer of water is agriculture. It takes up to 5,000 litres to grow a kilo of rice, 11,000 litres to make enough beef to produce a hamburger, similarly amazing quantities to grow coffee or cotton.
Most of this is, of course, provided by rainfall. But if something goes wrong with God’s arrangements, then not merely farmers but all of us are in trouble.
During the last super-drought in 1976, food prices rose by 12 per cent. Today, river levels are already below those of the same time that year.
The Kennet, our local chalk stream in Wiltshire, is almost dry above Marlborough, yet the water company continues to abstract huge quantities of water for thirsty Swindon. Wessex Water takes a billion litres of water a year for Somerset from the little Wiltshire Wylye.
The very survival is threatened of 40 out of 100 chalk streams in southern England, where we and our forefathers have wandered and cast flies for trout for centuries.
Even in streams which sustain a flow, gravel beds are becoming clogged while fish are showing stress and, indeed, dying.
The Kennet and Avon canal is unlikely to be open for barge traffic this summer, because the loss of water from the lock system is unsustainable.
After the grief wrought on our landscape a generation ago by Dutch elm disease, it will be heartbreaking if now we start losing trees to drought. But that is a real prospect, unless the weather changes dramatically.
What can be done? I do not mean tomorrow or the day after, but over the years ahead, because this seems now to be a climate trend.
The first step is obvious to everyone except our myopic politicians and planners: new building should be permitted only where there is sustainable water availability.
The lunatics at Westminster and in Whitehall want more housing development in southern England.
However, everybody else can see the madness — of expanding Swindon or of mindlessly approving 31,000 new homes to be built around Ashford in Kent, which is the driest county in Britain.
Some countries have been experimenting with cloud-seeding to promote rainfall. In Israel and parts of the U.S., aircraft scatter silver-iodide crystals above rain clouds, to trigger and intensify precipitation.
Evidence is inconclusive about whether seeding makes economic sense, but it surely wouldn’t in Britain.
In northern Chile’s Atacama desert, scientists had some success in capturing water suspended in local fogs by collecting it in plastic sheeting. A 12-by-three metre sheet can generate 150 litres in a day.
Desalination technologies are constantly improving. Before we are much older, more of these plants are likely to be operating in the South-East, where population density and demand are highest.
Meanwhile, there is fierce ongoing debate about whether we should build more reservoirs. The water companies want them. However, critics rage at the prospect of further shrinking our countryside to accommodate them.
They argue that, instead, it would benefit everyone if the water companies invested the same money in cutting huge waste from pipeline leakage.
Indeed, the most powerful argument against more reservoirs is that they are little help when — as now — the ones we already have are half-empty.
I prefer the solutions advocated by environmentalist Fred Pearce, who has been warning for years about the threat to our water supplies.
He urges, first, giving rivers more space: rather than embanking them to improve flow, he says we should slow them by keeping curves and promoting wetland beside their banks.
Click above Daily Mail link to read FULL report from Max Hastings