Re: Govt. looks to minimise flood vulnerability
Instead of “alleviating” the floods, how about “stopping” them altogether? “Alleviating” means it will still flood but instead of damages costing $200 million, it’ll cost $100 million.
What kind of objective is that?
Why do these aid agencies/donor funds only aim to “alleviate” rather than solve the problem altogether? Too expensive? Impossible? Someone should just come out and say so - “it is too expensive to stop the floods and the aid agencies/donors are not interested in spending that kind of money on this kind of thing”.