Venice’s floods are not signs of a ‘climate apocalypse’

There is no reason why local solutions cannot be found to the flooding.

Dominic Standish


Venice has endured a terrible two weeks of flooding. On 12 November, over 80 per cent of the city was flooded. The reading on the local tide gauge reached 187cm – the highest level recorded for 53 years. Venice mayor Luigi Brugnaro tweeted: ‘This is the result of climate change.’ His claim was widely repeated by the media. Luca Zaia, governor of the Veneto region, added that ‘We are faced with total apocalyptic devastation’.

The floods were certainly dramatic and damaging. In Venice’s city centre, St Mark’s Church was flooded and there are concerns about damage to the crypt, columns and floor mosaics. Three water buses sank and some banked on to public walkways. Boats and docking platforms were damaged throughout the lagoon due to high winds of 100km per hour and a tornado close to St Mark’s Square.

The worst damage was on the island of Pellestrina, where an elderly man died when he was struck by lightning. Pumping flood waters was a significant problem for flooded properties on this island. Other coastal areas of the region also experienced flooding and damage, including Chioggia, Jesolo and Caorle.

The damage is estimated to have cost hundreds of millions of euros. Churches, businesses, transport organisations and residents have suffered damage to their properties and boats. The height of the tide was underestimated. Winds were stronger than expected, leaving most people unprepared. On 14 November, the government declared a state of emergency and earmarked €20million to support Venice and its population.

But despite all the damage, the statement by Veneto governor Zaia, that Venice faced ‘total apocalyptic devastation’, is both inaccurate and historically ignorant. Venetians have suffered far more from past flooding than they have over the past two weeks. Fewer flood defences, less sturdy buildings and weaker infrastructure have hugely exacerbated the consequences of flooding.

Given its location, Venice has faced devastating floods throughout its history of over 1,500 years. In 1106 severe flooding wiped away every single building in the Venetian town of Malamocco. Historical accounts of flooding in 782, 840, 875, 1102, 1240, 1268 and 1794 reveal people frequently died from drowning or being stranded in cold water.

In modern times, during the floods of November 1966, the tides reached up to 194cm and 100 per cent of the city was flooded. Several thousand people were made homeless and the city was without electricity or telephones for days. The consequences of the 1966 floods were far more severe than today’s ‘total apocalyptic devastation’. Since 1966, measures such as the construction of jetties and breakwaters, waterproofing, raised paths and improved drainage mean that Venice is much better protected today – especially against low- and medium-level floods.

But as the recent floods clearly attest, Venice is still vulnerable. High-level floods – measured as above 110cm on the tide gauge – have become more frequent over the past century. These are caused by short-term weather effects, especially high winds blowing a greater volume of water from the Adriatic Sea into the Venetian lagoon, combined with rainfall and water from the surrounding rivers.

In addition, there has been a long-term rise in the mean sea level relative to the land. This correlates strongly with the increasing frequency of high floods.

The increase in the mean sea level in Venice has two causes. One is a sea-level rise related to climate change. The other is subsidence – meaning that the land around Venice is getting lower. The principal reason for so much subsidence is that groundwater used to be extracted from the aquifer under the lagoon between the 1930s and 1970s. Between 1897 and 1983, the relative sea level to the land in Venice rose by 23cm – with 12cm due to subsidence and 11cm caused by rising sea levels. Since the 1970s, subsidence has slowed and sea levels have risen by approximately 5cm.

Venice’s mayor was therefore wrong to say that the recent floods were only the result of climate change. Sea-level rise due to climate change has certainly contributed more to high floods in recent years, but land subsidence has been a major cause over the longer term.

Understanding these various causes is important in formulating responses. Blaming the ‘climate emergency’ misses the fact that the worst of the flooding could have been prevented – and can be prevented in future – with the right infrastructure. For instance, one long-term proposal being considered is whether to pump water back into the ground to raise the land level across the lagoon.

The most recent floods might have been blocked had the MOSE mobile dams been completed on time. These dams were designed to protect Venice and its lagoon from tides of up to 3m high. They began construction in 2003 and were due to be completed in 2011. Unfortunately, completion has been delayed due to environmental objections (including from the EU), technical and funding problems, frequent changes of government, and a local corruption scandal in 2014. The earliest the dams are estimated to be fully functioning is 2022.

Venice’s problems need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. They are serious. But they are not apocalyptical. We are more than capable of solving them.

Dominic Standish is the author of Venice in Environmental Peril? Myth and Reality and has lived in the Venice region since 1997. Visit his website here.

Picture by: Getty.

Let’s cancel cancel culture

Free speech is under attack from all sides – from illiberal laws, from a stifling climate of conformity, and from a powerful, prevailing fear of being outed as a heretic online, in the workplace, or even among friends, for uttering a dissenting thought. This is why we at spiked are stepping up our fight for speech, expanding our output and remaking the case for this most foundational liberty. But to do that we need your help. spiked – unlike so many things these days – is free. We rely on our loyal readers to fund our journalism. So if you want to support us, please do consider becoming a regular donor. Even £5 per month can be a huge help. You can find out more and sign up here. Thank you! And keep speaking freely.

Donate now

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Jim Lawrie

28th November 2019 at 11:10 am

They are seiche waves, not tides. Partly caused by and acting alongside The Sirocco, they cause a swell of up to five feet. Combined with a city built on mud and sinking into it, the result is a bit of flooding.

They occur at far greater severity in The Eastern Baltic. The Russians built a dam to protect St Petersburg. The Italians put up a £5bn fence in a hare brained scheme called The MOSE project. Instead of sympathising with them and giving them excuses and grants to latch onto, we should be laughing at them and ridiculing their corruption and incompetence, which ranks worse than Rwanda and rubs shoulder with Namibia and Mauritius.
They are a shower of plonkers.

Puddy Cat

28th November 2019 at 10:15 am

For a society which regards itself as sophisticated we have to wonder at the mind numbing weather problems that otherwise rational minds can dream up. The UN is reporting devastating storm surges for Britain and salmon watchers promote climate change effects on their fish’s drop in numbers.

In fact their is hardly a departure in man’s interaction with his planet that some wag cannot defer to as climate catastrophe. From Venice to south Yorks people are seeing ‘signs’ of nature’s peril. The sceptical amongst us might be wondering when we will begin to witness sightings of flibbertigibbets and other manifestations of things little understood and feared in our dark forest of fears.

The nature of news reporting is the ‘exclusive’ and in an era of febrile emotional responses it is a case of you provide me with the story and i’ll supply the war. Even if the salmon’s feeding grounds had been encroached upon by temperature fluctuation one would have reasoned that the temperature shift would recreate the environment elsewhere. (In the middle ages the herring shoals moved from the Baltic to the North Sea.) As for storm surges, the one that inundated Norfolk in 1953 killed over 2,000 people in England, Holland and Germany. We read that archaeology has discovered the verdant past of the Sahara with huge skeletal remains of fish found.

But the prevailing thought is that we are dead unless activists have their way. People who are inclined to blame everything on AGW are closed to solutions and when allowed more leeway will only find more associations. It seems that the media, especially, but also Governments and their electoral appeal, are now being driven before this wind of superstition and half digested facts.

Someone needs to man up. Rather than subsidising archaic methods of electrical production or exporting jobs those subsidies would be best dedicated to research. Wind farms are not an answer they are a salve only giving the appearance of action and resolution.

Philip Humphrey

28th November 2019 at 7:54 am

Exactly. The principal cause was the failure to build and complete flood defences in a timely manner to prevent an entirely predictable combination of weather and tides. Climate change has resulted in a small rise in average sea level, and was probably only a minor factor.

Neil John

28th November 2019 at 12:11 pm

“The most recent floods might have been blocked had the MOSE mobile dams been completed on time.” Those that have been built and are in place have problems with seized pivots and corrosion, finest chinesium re-melt (rubbish) steel I suspect, and a fatal design flaw. Unlike the Thames barrier which rotates up and back ‘sweeping’ it’s housing, the MOSE ‘floats’ to rise up out of it’s housing, which will then be filled with sand/silt and other debris being pushed in by the tide, thus preventing the barrier from sinking back into the housing.

Another issue not being discussed is the ongoing washing out by huge cruise liners of Venezia’s very foundations, the city continues to sink as a result, if the liners used to Southern lagoon entrance and the authorities dredged the requisite channel so they could still access the hugely expensive liner docks that would help immensely, but as ever the cruise lines don’t want that, they want to continue killing the golden goose by using the Guidecca canal, so they can sell cruises as going through the city.

Stephen J

28th November 2019 at 7:40 am

I wonder if anyone has ever pointed out to the Venetians that most people build their cities on dry land, and that such a strategy is provably better than building on water?

I think we should be told.

Lord Anubis

28th November 2019 at 10:42 am

The Venetians built their city in the middle of a swamp for good reasons. But a swamp it is nevertheless and it the city has been slowly sinking into the mud ever since. Global Warming this is not!

Jim Lawrie

28th November 2019 at 11:17 am

If they stop the water the place will stink to high heaven and the tourist trade is bust.

Weyland Smith

28th November 2019 at 5:31 pm

Ven Oods

28th November 2019 at 9:02 pm

Of course, it’s no accident that Fishlake rhymes with pish-take.
Its name was tempting Fate, which was duly tempted.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.