"the world"
this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
92 points (92.6% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5519 readers
530 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hey where's Alaska
On one hand, sometimes I feel like most insurance should be the government's job.
On the other hand, if climate change is making some areas really hard to live in, maybe we should consider closing down or moving whole cities instead of trying so hard to stay.
It would be a very expensive political decision, but a necessary one. The government could exchange the lands that keep getting destroyed or are at high risk for lower risk areas and subsidise greener infrastructure in them. While the riskier places could be cleared and rewilded where possible.
But the expense of doing so may not be affordable for governments that already have high deficits.
Yes you can deny the science all you want but you know who won't? The insurance companies. When no one will insure houses in FL I'm sure the GOP will rush to the rescue.
Also, notably, the Pentagon (US DoD), which has been making plans for preparing or moving facilities (especially navy bases) for rising sea levels and other climate change effects for at least 2 decades.
When I learned about that it made perfect sense, because long-term projections and planning is what they do, and I realized that everyone who denied the climate change evidence was an ignorant fool. If DoD is doing prep work for it then there's more than just evidence of occurrence, there's enough practical data to do serious planning with.
That makes an excellent point to bring up with deniers. Love to see one stumble-fuck around trying to praise the military while saying they must be run by liberals.
It is a good point but I have a family member who will begrudgingly not push back too much about whether climate change is happening (though you can tell he wants to) but will argue that you can’t prove it’s man made.
You’re fighting decades of propaganda and it’s hard.
Time to sell your house to Aquaman.
Desantis expanded Florida's State flood insurance, actually.
Don't give him too much credit tho, he was forced too because every insurance provider for over half the state bailed, so he had too.
It's also shitty insurance, from what I've read and filing a claim will most likely be worse than diy dental surgery. It will almost definitely be worse than Florida's unemployment webpage, which is decidedly hostile, with obfuscated links, built-in and artificial long load times, and designed to be as unappealing as possible.
GOP "help" . With friends like these; who needs enemies, right?
The world? Nah. Just the US.
US Defaultism
He’s going to have a shock when someone shows him a globe .
World is becoming unprofitable I guess might as well milk it for all we can get before we move to the next… oh wait…
Okay so if the taxpayers don't want the risk and the bill, we should put transfer this risk to those most responsible: fossil fuel companies, and oligarchs.
They must pay for flood, fire, hurricane and drought damages which they have wrought through their excess carbon emissions. They must rebuild homes in suitable locations for the conditions they have caused.
Maybe if people would stop living in places where natural disasters regularly happen without significantly adjusting their goddamn building strategies to create structures that not only survive, but also remain safe living spaces during these events for fucks sake.
I do wonder what the building cost differences are and if the costs are lowered by building denser urbanism instead of sprawl.
Damn son, did you just solve the puzzle?!? Where have you been this whole time? We needed you!
The only reason it's unsustainable is because they are trying to charge less than they should for insuring something in these locations, not built to survive the hazards of them. If insurance companies would stop spreading the cost around to make insuring these properties not cost as much as it should, it would work as the incentive it is supposed to be to change behaviour. By spreading the cost out to people not affected by high risk, they are punishing good behaviour and rewarding bad behaviour.
If they charged the premiums that it would actually take to insure these places based on their risk and their risk alone, it would either be sustainable, or no one would want to pay it.... either way, it solves the problem.
I'm surprised to see several midwestern and northeastern states considered to be somewhat of a climate haven show up repeatedly, and it makes me wonder what other non-climate effects (e.g. financial, legislative) may be at play as well.
most likely flooding or tornadoes.
Risks and losses cannot be extinguished, they can only be transferred to others. This is the intrinsic limit of political fixes: we take the risks and losses and transfer them to others lacking the political power to contest the transfer.
It's going to be the next big and serious political issue. Who gets bailed out?