• venia_sil@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    One would think that the political party of “bUtT thE bIbLE!!!111one” would pay attention to the part about, ya know, even mountains flooding.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fun fact: there isn’t any state that is safe from climate change disasters no matter what party is in power. Also, NC has a democratic governor and half of its House members are democrats.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Least affected states is/will be the Upper Midwest and even there, Republican politicians are making up for it by literally poisoning the drinking water.

        Because they’re cartoon villains, except dumber than Elmer Fudd.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          To be fair, it was one huge industrial area because of the great lakes ability to transport massive amounts of material. So it’s been poisoned land for like a hundred years now.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Not really, no. The Upper Midwest has poisoned lakes and also the best freshwater reservoirs in the country.

            The GOP just choose to supply places like Flint from the poisoned ones because they’re corrupt and don’t give a shit about people who can’t afford to kick in at least $1000 in legal bribes every election season and more between elections.

            • zeppo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              The problem in flint wasn’t that the water source was polluted, but rather that it was more acidic than the previous water supply. That wreaked havoc on the aging lead pipes in the community.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Well I’m no entomologist, but wouldn’t increased acidity be caused by pollution of one sort or the other?

                Also, the “aging lead pipes” bit us significant in itself and caused by politicians who would rather give tax break to the rich than fix basic infrastructure before it poisons people too.

                Isn’t water infrastructure the remit of the state rather than the city too anyway, like it is in Mississippi and Georgia where they’re ALSO famously poisoning poor people, people of color and ESPECIALLY poor people of color?

                • zeppo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Maybe the water was acidic from pollution, could be just the different source. Either way, they should have thought it out and could have treated the pH of the water. And sure, the aging infrastructure is bullshit. The entire thing was completely unnecessary too, basically Republicans who wanted to fuck people over out of hatred and spite, as far as I could tell. I don’t think we’re in disagreement there.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sometimes I wish I could just use a magic wand. I’m glad there’s safe water, and I’m horrified they make anyone use the unsafe stuff.

      • Fermion@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The GOP has a supermajority in the NC House. NC has a democratic governor, who is term limited, and a right wing lt. governor. Plus the GOP state legislature went ham with gerrymandering and redistricting before this upcoming election. So the republican hold on the state might deepen.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Some nice points but also NC voted for Trump in the last two presidential elections - and this despite having been a swing state prior to that?

        So yeah, not as deep a red state as they could be, but they were still fairly influential in e.g. dropping out of the Paris Climate Accord, not merely individually as a state but in causing the entire United States of America to do so.

        The best time to have done something was yesterday - or in this case, 8 years ago.

        Though the second best time is now.

      • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Some people get lost in a desert for 40, write a book about why they were lost for so long, and now folks give up Sundays to pray away their feelings.

        • venia_sil@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Some people get lost in a desert for 40, write a book about why they were lost for so long,

          See, that’s what not having OpenStreetMap does to a generation!

  • Soup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Also that argument is dead on arrival because they expect you and businesses and the entire city to pack up and leave as if it would cost nothing. They also have literally said “just sell your house and move” but like TO WHO?! Who would buy that house if it’s in such a fucked area?!

    If anyone ever says “just move” you know they have zero concept of the word “community” or “moving costs” or “nuance”. They just don’t want to address the cause of the problem because they’re, at best, cowards.

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If its our area (Flordia coast)… that’s not a problem.

      Buyers don’t care. They don’t know squat about flooding or hurricanes, they just come in from out of state and get dazzled by the realtor and the weather and everything and buy.

      Our housing market was so crazy houses were being auctioned left and right. Market value just keeps going up, even on the coast.

      TL;DR if the area is superficially attractive enough, home buyers are idiots. I realize this is probably not the case in Georgia mountains, but it his here, and its enabling a vicious cycle where builders keep building homes in obvious flood zones, where they absolutely shouldn’t.

      • psivchaz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That doesn’t fix the problem, it just changes who has the problem. Though I’ll admit that idiots buying bad stuff from other idiots in a cycle until eventually one idiot gets their life totally ruined feels a little on the nose.

      • ChexMax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not exactly. My coworker has been trying to sell his waterfront home for over a year. He keeps having to rehab it after flooding from storms and then right back on the market. No luck. Starting October 13th or something you have to start disclosing floods when selling, also.

      • limelight79@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I was talking to some friends last weekend, and one of them said that they had previously owned a house on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. I said, “I love the Outer Banks, love visiting it, but I would never buy real estate there.” He said, “Yeah, it took a couple years for us to figure that out.”

        Of course, the islands are basically giant sandbars, and there’s the sea level rise issue. But I hadn’t considered that the environment is just that much harder on houses - roofs need to be replaced more often, wood rots more quickly, and so on - and that’s not even including a hurricane coming through. When the kind kicks up, which happens pretty regularly there, the house is getting sandblasted. The maintenance costs are much higher compared to an inland house, and I assume insurance is much higher, and so on.

        They rented it out to vacationers to help offset that cost, but they found that they weren’t breaking even - they have to charge competitive rates to get customers, but those rates weren’t covering all of the major upcoming expenses.

        But, there’s still a market for houses there. I imagine the recent images in the news of houses collapsing into the water have to be having an effect, but the bottom doesn’t seem to be falling out like you’d think.

        • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          No kidding, even inland salt is a menace. That + sand destroys stuff outside.

          Florida has the added bonus of being a swampy jungle, which you don’t really understand until you try to live there. Your landscaping, weeds, anything that grows, grows like crazy. Your pets will get all sorts of infections and parasites from the ground, even with all the pesticide they spray through sheer necessity. Mosquitos are even bigger than in Texas, and they never leave. And I saw a big alligator tear up our neighbor’s porch trying to run/hide from us, in a very suburban area.

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The problem is a town was built where there should not be one. Flood plains WILL flood. Rebuilding is pointless. It will just be destroyed again. At some point we have to cut our losses.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        On top of what the other person said people still need to live in those places. It is actually crazy to say that the entire south-eastern seaboard of the United States should just be permanently evacuated wholesale. We could slow, or even stop, a lot of this by just admitting that climate change is real and doing something about it and it would be a helluva lot cheaper than turning several states in ghost towns.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m not saying to abandon the whole southeast, but something in the range of 15 million US homes are built in flood plains. A large portion of these are in Texas and Florida. It is absolute madness to keep building and rebuilding in these areas.

          Even if we drop global CO² emissions to zero tomorrow, it will take more than a century to even begin to see trends reverse. In the mean time lowland areas will continue to flood over and over.

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Well dang. If only we knew about this back in the 70s, we’d have some time to focus on green energy, increasing efficiency, reducing excess, and building homes/communities that could withstand the changing climate.

        • OpenStars@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          During the pandemic, Trump dragged his feet in developing a response to it - leaked conversations mentioned how individual #1 liked the fact that it was primarily affecting highly liberal areas such as NYC and LA, while leaving conservative strongholds such as Idaho and Utah alone, and had asked about delaying the federal response a bit so as to let the people in the former stew in it a bit more, for his political advantage.

          Also I note that that same individual #1 was in charge of nationwide disaster recovery efforts - even going so far as to take the binders of ready-made plans and throw them into the garbage.

          So this whole “it is not the job of the government to use its tax collected revenue to take care of We The People” is very much by design. i.e. not merely a factual matter but a political one, in having to choose between deeper tax breaks for the wealthy vs. preparedness. And Individual #1 made that choice, in conjunction with Congress, that now applies to us all.

          In fact, the former swing state turned Republican stronghold NC is one of the very reasons why climate change is hitting us so strong and fast, unprepared and seemingly even unawares.

          Perhaps “admitting that climate change is real and doing something about it” is something that NC will now change its mind about, so that the federal government can do differently?

          But I somewhat doubt it. It is very hard to help someone who seems dead set against being helped, nor allowing the rest of us to help ourselves as well (see e.g. medically necessary abortions).

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        “A” town didn’t flood, there’s wreckage across the entire southeast. It’s not because people in the south are too stupid to know where to build, it’s because climate change is making hurricanes stronger further inland, resulting in century and thousand year floods happening.

        • Zexks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          So move further inland. You people act as if the entire fucking continent became Atlantis after one fucking storm.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s both - yes, places are getting hit with types and scales of natural disasters they could not have anticipated, but they’re also rebuilding in places that will get hit hardest when they do it again

          Consider the idea of a 100 year standard - you’re building to the level where it won’t hold up to the storm of a lifetime. Let alone the fact that storms keep getting worse… It boggles my mind

          • OpenStars@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Poor people live where they can afford to, however they can. In trailer parks, in a tent, in a log cabin, however they can. Even knowing that someplace is likely to flood again, someone will choose to live there. For someone who has a minimum wage job, no savings, and with most houses costing a significant fraction of a million dollars, they don’t have the choice to live in a floating sky castle or 20,000 leagues under the sea or on a moon colony, so they’ll choose to live even somewhere where life is difficult.

            Agreed though that people should not pay the full asking price for such a place, as if it would not flood, that is… probably happening, but not wise at all.

        • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          And those type of floods will only increase in frequency. This is the new normal. People will need to move if they don’t want to be rebuilding every couple years.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Move where? Are you suggesting we just abandon everywhere within hundreds of miles of the coast? People living hundreds of miles inland and not in a flood plain are affected by this as well. Look at an elevation map of North Carolina, and then tell me which side you think would be safer to be on: the side with mountains, or the low lying side by the ocean?

            Because it was the western part of NC that got fucking wrecked. Suggesting that people should have foreseen this as inevitable when they chose to be born into communities that have been in the same place for literally hundreds of years without experiencing floods on this level is unrealistic, as is expecting people to just up and move with money they may not have to places where they have no community.

            Expecting that we can just offload the price of climate disasters on those affected by going “oh well you should have just lived somewhere else” isn’t just inhumane, it’s ostrich head in sand behavior. Your community isn’t safe from climate change, either. You better hope people haven’t run out of empathy by the time you or your family need help.

            • bamfic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Hah and abandon NYC, Boston, DC, SF, LA, Sydney, plus entire countries like Holland, the UK, India with its billion people, etc? This is madness. There is nowhere safe to go and the numbers of people to be displaced are staggering

            • OpenStars@discuss.online
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              “One rule for thee, another for me” is indeed a not great proposition. Unfortunately, NC voted for Trump that did so much to cause that quoted thought to flourish, and also to harm the climate further e.g. withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord.

              Democrats were the ones who have historically offered aid to those affected by massive natural disasters, and Republicans are the ones who claim that such aid should not be offered, except ofc when it happens in their own area (e.g. Chris Christy advocating for rich people:s second, beach homes in NJ vs. his earlier thoughts when it was poor people in New Orleans that lost everything).

              So let’s hope that NC wakes up to facts, as opposed to e.g. voting for Trump a third time in a row, and thereby further deepening this hole that we are digging ourselves into.

              Politics matters, as in literally life and death.

        • bashbeerbash@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          A drought in south america has caused out of control wildfires that dumped 210 megatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, this year alone.

          That’s just from wildfires in one continent. Now add it to all the CO2 produced in one year.

          The runaway effects are becoming more evident and unfortunately people will have to finally give up on huge swaths of land or be killed. Save the planet, hang a CEO

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            We should have started building sanctuary cities a decade ago. Unfortunately the wealthy in the world are choosing a Noah’s Ark model for climate change because they delusionally think they will survive this. So yeah, billions will die because that’s what leadership has wanted. They don’t want them to move to better areas. They want “God” to kill them.

    • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Broad brushes don’t work. I moved out of country in my early twenties. Moved back home in my mid twenties, then proceeded to move to three different coasts over the course of the next decade, selling two homes and most belongings in the process before ultimately moving to an inland city that’s a fourteen hour drive from where I grew up and knew nobody (I’ve been here nearly twenty years now). If the area goes to hell then yeah, I’ll scope out job options and quality of life in other locations, sell my house and unnecessary belongings, and move my boys and I. It isn’t nearly as difficult as people flap about. Staying somewhere until theirs no longer a buyers market is short sighted similar to people refusing to leave Biloxi when it was certain to be destroyed (one of the places I moved out of) and folks deserve what they get if they refuse to leave. I’d love for us to fix the climate and socioeconomic issues so difficult decisions didn’t need to be made but people burying their heads in the sand and refusing to look out for themselves and their family in response to global and societal issues will never make sense to me. Control what you can control but recognize what you don’t control and adapt. If folks aren’t going to take responsibility for the things they can control I don’t see any reason to fret about the things outside of their control negatively impacting them.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Most people seem to have a particular brand of irresponsibility wherein they avoid their own problems by distracting themselves with those of others. It can work out semi-okay even, under some conditions like a spouse caring for someone who also cares for them in return, though ofc it’s not ideal in the sense of not taking care of yourself. But very little in life is ever fully “ideal” so… I’m saying that at least this form of mental unhealth isn’t as damaging as e.g. doing drugs can be.

        And it can be predated upon by the unscrupulous. Which technology allows to happen quicker, and with greater reach (breadth of those affected) and depth (if everyone around you believes in something, then surely it couldn’t be “false” now could it?) than was ever possible before, even with organized religion (e.g. Catholics seem to listen more to Faux News than to the literal Pope).

        i.e., listening to those “in charge” is actually a good thing, and democracy is also a good thing (if implemented well), but listening to idiots who inflame tensions subverts those good processes, and converts the outcomes to very bad ones. This is why I fear that democracy itself might be about to fail, at least as practiced in the USA - not just bc Trump said that people would only have to vote for him once more and then they’d never need to vote ever again, but bc regardless of whether he wins, there is a huge segment of the population (something like 42%, although due to the Electoral College manages to control the entire outcome) that is pushing for that, and will continue to do so on the next ballot, and the one after that, etc. Plus digs their heels in every time they lose to control outcomes either way - e.g. the government shutdowns holding the budgets hostage.

        So I am glad that you are responsible, and quite frankly even the idiots are trying to be, as they vote how they do bc their self-chosen leaders told them to, but we all have blind spots, some far more than others.

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      We’re rapidly hitting a point where the government is going to have to buy their house to get people to leave florida thanks to climate change.

      Insurers won’t even insure houses there anymore.

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I mean, you’re the one who bought it currently, just find an equal or dumber person like yourself, bam. Simple. At its core, this is basically how all products are sold.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        At its core, this is basically how all products are sold.

        Imagine being so neck deep in the scam economy that you don’t even remember that products that aren’t scams exist.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s funny and I’m sure you know this but for purposes of discussion -

        Think about a couple common examples:

        I would pay like a thousand dollars not to wash clothes by hand for a few years.

        You see washing machines are like $500-$1000, you buy, you’re happy.

        I’d pay five bucks to have a sweet dark tasting liquid in my mouth and not be as tired.

        Cha-ching, Starbucks makes a sale.

        So even rational consumers often make purchases when their expected utility/satisfaction exceeds the monetary cost.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You’ve completely missed the point about community, eh? And you know people don’t get to pick where they’re born or where their extended family lives, right? So they get born into these places and get locked down for whatever reason and can’t leave. Certainly they can’t all leave in one perfect unit all at the same time.

        Also that’s not how all products are sold, holy shit. Maybe certain drop shippers, sure, but that’s not how it works.

        • Know_not_Scotty_does@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I can tell you the other thing people do as they grow up and that is develop their own views. Growing up in Texas, I didn’t realize anything was wrong or out of the ordinary politically/ideologivally. My parents had their views which initially became my views since that was what was normal in my family and community

          Getting older and more mature, I realized I didn’t agree with my state or parents but I also didn’t have the option to pack up and leave. By the time I was able to sustain myself and build a life, I had already gotten a job, a relationship, and wanted to start building my own family. Doing that meant staying where I was since my in-laws were in the same city and my spouse didn’t want to be away from them.

          Even if on paper to some people it is as easy as just sell your house and leave there are complicating factors. I don’t want my kids to have to deal with hurricanes, power grid failures, intolerance of others, and everything else Texas has to “offer” but at the same time, its not so easy to just bail and start again.

          • rhandyrhoads@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Can’t really escape the power grid failures, but as far as hurricanes and intolerance go, there’s always Austin.

        • 474D@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Dude it’s just moving, it’s not that hard. People do it multiple times in their lives. Relax.

    • NABDad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They also have literally said “just sell your house and move” but like TO WHO?! Who would buy that house if it’s in such a fucked area?!

      You have to sell the story that the area is a conservative utopia where people can live free of wokeness.

      Then the conservative refugees from the satanic, communist areas will flock to you to buy your land.

  • TheTetrapod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Honestly, I think we should write off the entire Eastern US at this point. Sacrifice that shit to Poseidon.

  • BakerBagel@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The Appalachian mountains getting massive flooding all the time. The only places you can really build anything are along river valleys in the mountains, so they flood when big storms come through.

    • Unlearned9545@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The area I live in has flooded 3 times since it was first inhabited in in the 1780s. 1915, 2004, and Helene. Helene had about as much water as those previous two times combined.

      “floods all the time” bite me

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not every town is gonna flood every year. But there are major floods across Appalachia every year because of the geography. It’s always been a high flood rosk area, which was a major reason for the TVA back in the 30’s. Electrify the area and control flooding. I’m not arguing against climate change. I’m just saying that “flooding in the mountains” isnt some Noah’s arc type shit.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not like this. I’ve lived in a mountain valley that got big storms. Normal prep was one layer of sandbags around doors and other openings. Not trying to hold back 3 feet of mud.

    • CreateProblems@corndog.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I used to live in the area and the “massive flooding all the time” is literally nothing compared to the amount of devastation in the area currently. Entire communities have literally been obliterated by landslides. Thousands of people are stranded because of damaged roads. Hundreds of thousands are still without power. In some isolated areas it is going to take weeks/months to rebuild infrastructure to even access the areas, let alone repair homes and return electricity.

      I’m actually upset, because your comment is implying that this is a run-of-the-mill occurrence in the area. This is an unprecedented tragedy and the worst flooding the area has seen since 1916 (and this time it affects thousands more people because of growth in the region.)

      • pachrist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I would disagree. I used to live in Rosman, NC, about an hour south of Asheville.

        This is absolutely a precedented tragedy. It is run of the mill. That’s because of climate change. Because of climate change, these 100 year floods are occurring once a decade. Yes, this is the biggest in those hundred years, but there are communities who are enormously affected by this regularly.

        Calling it unprecedented plays into climate deniers hands. It wasn’t normal. But it is becoming normal. It is precedented. We caused it. If it’s unprecedented, people will ignore it as an oddity, an outlier. But people living there should expect this.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You always get weather systems like that in the midwest from hurricanes. That system meets weather from the west coast there and literally creates tornado alley. And I agree climate change is very bad and making things worse.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I do think people fixate on “Climate Change is going to make weather patterns way worse” while losing a bit of sight on “Our infrastructure has been collapsing for the last 50 years and neither states nor businesses want to spend money to shore it up”.

      These hurricanes are the big-ass straw that’s breaking the ancient and rickety-knee’d camel’s back. Even if we magically solved rising temperatures tomorrow, we’d still be dealing with the legacy of higher global temperatures for another century. And we’d still have infrastructure that’s continuing to pass its expiration date under the most benign weather conditions.

      But because of the way we do accounting and measure economic growth in this country, these storms only ever seem to be counted as “future possible risks to hedge against” rather than “guaranteed costs to invest in anticipation of”.

  • CazzoneArrapante@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is why I get angry that whenever I complain on Reddit about climate change because of massive heatwaves someone said “just emigrate north lmao”. Neoliberals are deluded, we have to solve the problem, period.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      “Solve” was 20 years ago. Now it’s only “mitigate”. But that’s the difference between global catastrophe and literal breakdown of organized society.

      • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        We could solve global warming right now with intentional cloud seeding, but many are worried geoengineering could be too effective and freeze us. Or, if we solve the heating, it could give fossil fuels the wrong impression that they can keep pumping CO² into the air despite it still killing the oceans with carbonic acid.

    • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They also fail to understand that there are 9 theorized planetary boundaries needed to support human life, and we’ve crossed at least 6 if not 7 of them. We need to not cross ANY. Moving north doesn’t fix most of these PLANETARY boundaries

      • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s pretty ironic that right wing parties in Europe are actually making what they hate, African migration to Europe, more likely to happen. They don’t want any money going to programs that combat climate change and they don’t want aid going to Africa to help Africans survive and thrive and build their economies.

    • Fleur_@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Most people take complaining as an opportunity to give advice. Moving to a less risk adverse area is good advice and probably the most any one person can achieve in terms of reducing their personal climate change related risks. If you don’t want to get those kinds of answers you have to specify that you either dont actually want advice or that you specifically want advice that you personally can’t do anything with.

    • nepenthes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      North is their answer… Ask them if Canada is north enough…

      Where we had that Hell Dome^TM from June 25 to July 1, 2021 and 526 people died after it reached 50°c and didn’t cool off at night-- making it “the deadliest weather event in Canada to date.”

      Or how about when it flooded so bad in the same place, 6 months later, that thousands of animals died, 20k people needed to be evacuated, and roads broke-- cutting off the Greater Vancouver Region from the rest of the Province.

      Heatwave

      Flood

      North won’t save anyone 😬

  • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    All of earth is a disaster area. Extreme temps of hot and cold, tornadoes exist, wildfires, wildlife, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.

    And of course, apophis could just take us all out. 🤞

  • LordGimp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yall need to study geology better in the south. Just build shit where it doesn’t flood. I love seeing these flooded out Tennessee towns right at the bottom of beautiful hills. Don’t build on the hills, no! Rebuild in the river valley and then cry about flooding again.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I hope you’re treated with the exact amount of compassion you’re showing here when climate change affects your home.

      • LordGimp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Excuse me while I laugh in Californian wildfires.

        The difference between us is that I am not shocked when floodzones flood, forest fires burn, and landslides slide. The only “unnatural” change in the environment is fucking people. We turn swamps into cities and then cry tragedy when they turn back into swamps. We build cities in deserts and cry that there is not enough water. We overpopulated the planet and then complain that it is killing us. We are the problem. Nature is just doing what nature has always done. The nature of Nature is change.

          • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Brazil have been known as a really stable place without extreme climate events, but this year we had one of the worst floods on the history of the country that got all the insurance industry with their pants down. And now everyone is having to re model their assumptions and the re insurance rates were to the roof.

            • LordGimp@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Brazil is a gigantic bowl catching the wet air coming in from the Atlantic. Ofc it floods. You’re only feeling it now because deforestation is out of control and surprise! Those forests protected the rest of the area from the worst of the floods.

    • Unlearned9545@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I live in the mountains. 2000 feet above sea level. The nearest river is a mile away and 40 feet of elevation below us. The river normally is 3 feet deep and 10 feet wide, when the area gets a lot of rain it can run about 8 feet deep, but no worries because that’s how high the bank is. When Helene hit, the flood waters rose up to our street.

      • LordGimp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        2000 feet is barely foothills. We build taller buildings than 2000 feet. When I hear “mountains” i expect a visable treeline at the very least. Mt hood, Mt Shasta, the Rockies, the Sierra Nevadas, those are mountains and ranges. You live in the hills.

  • Shelbyeileen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have a degree in postmortem science and hobby in anthropology/archeology/paleontology. The biggest extinction event this globe has ever seen, the Permian Extinction, where over 90% of ALL life (96% of ocean life) went extinct, was from pollution and a mere 10°C increase in global temperature. That’s all it took to decimate life on earth. The pollution and heat came from volcanoes, but we are on the same path. It’s already gone up 1.6°C… I do think humanity will survive, but not the majority of us.

    Some of my family doesn’t believe in climate change, and/or is religious to the point that they don’t believe in carbon dating and core sample data. I wish I could make them believe, but no data in the world will work.

    I was part of a documentary on the largest fires in recorded history and so many were within the last 10 years it was terrifying. One in the forests of Russia was still ongoing when the doco was finished and RELEASED!