Is it possible to get the truth on land reclamation? I have read up a bit on this from the past from an environmentalist's viewpoint. Obviously, he/she thinks land reclamation is bad. But the more you read about things like this, the more it feels like reading up on climate change or maybe fracking. The government and big corporations obviously feel like this is not harmful, in fact it's beneficial, while the environmentalists claimed that there's a massive coverup.

So anyone knows better?

Where can I get documentaries on this subject?

Well living on reclaimed land I disagree about that it is bad as the environment has a great capacity to adapt and if reclamation is done sympathetically there should not be a problem.
The Dutch stopped reclaiming land (the Markermeer) in the IJsselmeer because of the effect on the eels, an important industry, was having.

Well what else can you do with swamps and mangroves. It's not like they are geographically limited or highly diverse and fragile ecosystems with relatively large numbers of endemics or nurseries for enormous numbers of fish and crustaceans despite the majority having already been destroyed or severely degraded or anything right?

The environment has a great capacity to adapt. Specially when it's under 20m of sand. Lots of adaptation, see it all the time. Nothing new here, move along.

Fenrir wrote:The environment has a great capacity to adapt. Specially when it's under 20m of sand. Lots of adaptation, see it all the time. Nothing new here, move along.

What are you on about? Australia funny enough is not the world thank goodness and just because you are making the biggest mess of your environment not all countries are doing that.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fenrir wrote:The environment has a great capacity to adapt. Specially when it's under 20m of sand. Lots of adaptation, see it all the time. Nothing new here, move along.

What are you on about? Australia funny enough is not the world thank goodness and just because you are making the biggest mess of your environment not all countries are doing that.

"The environment" does not and cannot adapt when it is buried. It dies. Period. Full stop.

A new ecosystem may develop on top of the newly reclaimed land but it will not be the same as was originally there. In many cases the new ecosystem will be highly depauperate as compared to the original.

This is basic stuff for fucks sake.

*and you can shove your gratuitous and snide comments about the location of any poster who deigns to question the received wisdom of Scott up your arse.

Fenrir wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Fenrir wrote:The environment has a great capacity to adapt. Specially when it's under 20m of sand. Lots of adaptation, see it all the time. Nothing new here, move along.

What are you on about? Australia funny enough is not the world thank goodness and just because you are making the biggest mess of your environment not all countries are doing that.

"The environment" does not and cannot adapt when it is buried. It dies. Period. Full stop.

A new ecosystem may develop on top of the newly reclaimed land but it will not be the same as was originally there. In many cases the new ecosystem will be highly depauperate as compared to the original.

This is basic stuff for fucks sake.

*and you can shove your gratuitous and snide comments about the location of any poster who deigns to question the received wisdom of Scott up your arse.

Why should I? I would be more worried what is happening to my country than worrying about a few land reclamation projects elsewhere in the world.

Anyway what is the original ecosystem? When did it evolve? So all the bird sanctuaries created on wetlands are all wrong?
As I said if it done sympathetically there is nothing wrong in changing the ecosystem to attract other animals.

Reclaimed land is not wetlands.

Bird sanctuaries are not generally created on reclaimed land.

Do you even read what you write?

Fenrir wrote:Reclaimed land is not wetlands.

Bird sanctuaries are not generally created on reclaimed land.

Do you even read what you write?

Your complete ignorance on the whole subject is showing.

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trenv.html

http://www.cbwps.org.uk/cbwpsword/reserves/walmsley/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation

Being a bit of a pedant I see distinct differences between land reclamation, which generally involves filling low-lying land or land below the high tide mark and land restoration, which generally involves attempting sone sort of rehabilitation of degraded or otherwise highly disturbed land.

My comments are only directed at land reclamation.

That some usian jurisdictions (and it seems small areas of the Netherlands) conflate or confuse the two is news to me.

Fenrir wrote:Being a bit of a pedant I see distinct differences between land reclamation, which generally involves filling low-lying land or land below the high tide mark and land restoration, which generally involves attempting sone sort of rehabilitation of degraded or otherwise highly disturbed land.

My comments are only directed at land reclamation.

That some usian jurisdictions (and it seems small areas of the Netherlands) conflate or confuse the two is news to me.

Both for me belong together. I live at two metres belong sea level so not that far under but it was reclaimed in the 18th century.

Land restoration and land reclamation do go hand in hand. Much of the reclaimed river beds here are restored to habitable areas for animals and I see no problem for that. Reclaiming land for the sake of reclaiming land dies out in the 50's.

Where do you see problems in land reclamation?

Dude here chopped the tops off a couple of mangroves so he could see the bay from his deck. Neighbors bitched and he was arrested, charged, fined, and pilloried in the press and on local TV.

Big developer comes in, pays off the country council, and gets permits to destroy an entire ecosystem on a barrier island in order to put up even more fucking high rise condos so even more ancient old Yankee assholes can clog up the heaving roads and bitch about how they do it differently in New York. So move the fuck back to New York if you don't like it here. Money talks and bullshit walks, that's the way it is.

I'm so goddamn sick of it we're selling up and getting the fuck outta Dodge (or Sarasota, in this case). It will take a year or two, worse luck, but plans are in place.

Coastal land reclamation destroys the estuarine community. Estuaries are vital for maintaining fish stocks. Not just for estuarine species, they are the nursery for a large number of pelagic species and support our own fishing effort. We take too much as it is but we have also significantly reduced recruitment with our land nanagement practices.

Land reclamation promotes turbidity and sedimentation. Many near-coastal ecosystems are negatively impacted. Seagrass beds, kelp gardens and coral reefs particularly. Where these communities are not destroyed outright they are stressed, leading to reduced diversity and disease issues. Where areas are denuded sediments can become mobile, potentially leading to increased intensity of wave action and increased damage and flooding during storm events.

Land reclamation can constrict water flow and change currents. Probably not the biggest issue but it's there. Might have had something to do with the eel issue you mentioned. That and perhaps destruction of the reed beds they need. Don't know that particular story.

Draining wetlands, including swamps, fens and marshes destroys the natural ecosystems. Centuries of considering swamps good only for draining or landfill have seen their extent significantly reduced worldwide. This affects not only the plants and animals which require them (many of which are now endangered or extinct) but has significantly reduced numbers of migratory birds worldwide, look up the Ramsar convention.

As far as humans are concerned, draining or filling of wetlands changes the flow of water across the landscape leading to greater damage from flood events as water is forced into channels producing more energetic flows.

Draining a swamp and putting cows on it is not "restored to habitable areas for animals". It is removing the existing ecosystem and replacing it with a green desert. Some plants and animals will manage to hold on around the edges but most are stuffed.

Land restoration is a different animal entirely. Land restoration is taking land which has been buggered by human interference and trying to remediate it. There's a lot of ground covered by restoration though. Disturbances are many and varied (mines, land-fill of waste, noxious industry) and the aims of restoration likewise vary (anything from a park to a fully functioning ecosystem or to simply encouraging wildlife to coexist with an existing facility be it a dam or a farm or an industrial site).

It's a big topic which covers a lot of quite different scenarios. Would take far more than a single post or even thread to cover.

Dont apply what happens in Australia or the Americas as what happens everywhere. South America is one hell of a mess.
What lak says about Florida just would not happen here.

I suggest that one particular thing needs to be spelled out in this thread:

"Land Reclamation" is a POLITICAL or a SALES designation, not a scientific one.

That is the starting point, if you want a dispassionate discussion, because each so-called land reclamation project has to be addressed individually, to decide what is lost, what is gained, and whether it's desirable, and to whom.

Land isn't "reclaimed," in a factual sense, unless it gets left behind in a pub, and someone shows up (hopefully sober) the next day, and proves that they own it. All other instances of so-called "land reclamation" are better described as "land/water/marsh/whatever re-purposing," at most. People who are pushing for it like to give it a more positive sounding name, in hopes that they will be half way to getting what they want, simply by limiting the discussion to why anyone should EVER be prevented from "reclaiming" something.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Dont apply what happens in Australia or the Americas as what happens everywhere. South America is one hell of a mess.
What lak says about Florida just would not happen here.

Global Hydrology: Processes, Resources and Environmental Management by J A A A Jones

Page 324

Since 1950, the main OECD countries have lost nearly 13 per cent of their wetlands, and Germany and the Netherlands have lost over 50 per cent, with important consequences for the Rhine.

So the Dutch have lost over 50% of their wetlands. That's a fucking ecosystem disaster right there.

That's since 1950. The zuider zee

Bloody tapatalk.

Anyways, that's only since 1950. The Zuider Zee experiment began in the early 20s and there were already extensive "reclaimed" areas from before that time.

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Dont apply what happens in Australia or the Americas as what happens everywhere. South America is one hell of a mess.
What lak says about Florida just would not happen here.

Global Hydrology: Processes, Resources and Environmental Management by J A A A Jones

Page 324

Since 1950, the main OECD countries have lost nearly 13 per cent of their wetlands, and Germany and the Netherlands have lost over 50 per cent, with important consequences for the Rhine.

So the Dutch have lost over 50% of their wetlands. That's a fucking ecosystem disaster right there.

One opinion in many. Well done.

Handwavium. Typical scot.