The Economist in response to its piece on the changing names of London coined by journalists – ‘Reykjavik-on-Thames‘.
What I sent:‘Sir Given the combination of accelerating disappearance of the polar ice caps, and slow motion (glacial?) climate change negotiations, we could be looking at sea level rises of over a metre by the end of the century. The next name for London, in common with most ports and low lying areas around the world, is most likely to be ‘the sea’. Duncan Green, London-Under-Thames ‘ What they subsequently printed in this week’s edition: Flood warning SIR – Bagehot listed the various nicknames given to London over the years, including Manhattan-on-Thames, Londonistan and Londongrad (January 31st). Given climate change and rising sea levels, in the future London will probably be better known as London-under-Thames. Duncan Green London’ Delighted they ran it, obviously, but am I being overly precious in thinking that, while they did indeed have to summarize the content of the initial piece (my bad), their version is far clunkier than the one I sent them. It also loses the reference to the climate change talks and so presents sea level rises as a fait accomplit, not at all my intention. Shouldn’t they have at least run it past me before printing?]]>