"Sometimes an event is not just an event, it is an X-ray of the political and psychological condition of a nation," says Janan Ganesh in the Financial Times. The recent floods and gales are a case in point.
Opposition politicians call them an "ecological wake-up call" for a government "apparently insouciant" about climate change and say David Cameron needs to "take charge".But the truth is, we aren't used to extreme weather.
The storms are a reminder that there is a limit to what the state can do, "but no limit on our expectations" and that applies to all the big issues of the day, from wage stagnation to immigration, Europe and globalisation.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Actually, the government, and previous ones, are at fault, says Richard Ashley in The Independent on Sunday. The current situation is the result of a "systemic failure" of our politicians and policymakers to take a long-term, strategic approach to environmental hazards.
Ashley was involved in two reports, the Foresight Future Flooding study of 2000 and another in 2007, which covered how flood risks would change up to the 2080s and what might be done to cope with a changing climate. The reports predicted "precisely what is coming to pass".
Part of the problem is that many in government "either don't believe, or don't wish to upset those who don't believe" that the climate is changing. It's time Treasury funding rules and government priorities changed: £32bn diverted from HS2 would provide a lot of flood defences.
Huge investments in sea and river defences after a storm surge in 1953 are the reason why the Dutch haven't been forced to flee from their homes in recent weeks, says The Spectator.
Sea defences there are of a standard required to protect against a once-in-every-10,000-years flood event; river defences are built to a one-in-1,250-year standard. In Britain, the corresponding figures are one in 200 and one in 100 years.
After the completion of the Thames Barrier in 1982, policy shifted from preparing for floods to trying to "will them away" with millions spent trying to avert climate change.
Gordon Brown halved infrastructure spending to protect "voter-sensitive departments" such as the NHS and George Osborne has cut the flood defence budget. Even those in favour of a small state recognise that there are certain things the military, flood defences, road repair that have to be organised on a collective basis.
The Environment Agency should be replaced with a properly funded flood-defence agency. A transfer of cash being "frittered" on windfarms and solar parks would be a good start.
It's a "no-brainer", agrees Andrew Lilico in The Daily Telegraph. Three decades of "fabulously expensive" climate-change-mitigation schemes have made virtually no difference. Unlike prevention, adaptation is "feasible" and "much, much cheaper".
Emily has extensive experience in the world of journalism. She has worked on MoneyWeek for more than 20 years as a former assistant editor and writer. Emily has previously worked on titles including The Times as a Deputy Features Editor, Commissioning Editor at The Independent Sunday Review, The Daily Telegraph, and she spent three years at women's lifestyle magazine Marie Claire as a features writer for three years, early on in her career.
On MoneyWeek, Emily’s coverage includes Brexit and global markets such as Russia and China. Aside from her writing, Emily is a Nutritional Therapist and she runs her own business called Root Branch Nutrition in Oxfordshire, where she offers consultations and workshops on nutrition and health.
Who is the richest person in the world?
The top five richest people in the world have a combined net worth of $825 billion. Who takes the crown for the richest person in the world?
By Vaishali Varu Published
Top 10 stocks with highest growth over past decade - from Nvidia, Microsoft to Netflix, which companies made you the most money?
We reveal the 10 global companies with the biggest returns since 2013. One firm has posted an astonishing 9,870% return, meaning a £1,000 investment would now be worth almost £82,000.
By Ruth Emery Published