this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
64 points (98.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

7217 readers
258 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: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

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
silence7@slrpnk.net
64
The uninsurable world: what climate change is costing homeowners | Rising premiums are a de facto ‘carbon price’ on consumers as extreme weather events become more frequent (www.ft.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archived copies of the article: ghostarchive.org archive.today

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BumbleBeeButt@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Eh kick out the profit driven insurance companies, and bring in state insurance.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That doesn't solve the underlying problem, which is that some places have a very high yearly probability of disaster.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

How do we help the people struggling leave these areas? I'm sure many are buried already and can't incur more costs.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Let's say, for example, Florida from alligator Alley down everyone has to leave. Where exactly should all these people go and what do you with all the houses and business buildings left behind? And if there are just empty cities sitting around someone is gonna move into them, legally or otherwise, and then what?

I think a better solution would be government funding of retrofitting homes to better handle the disasters they can potentially face. Florida for example could make steel reinforced concrete block standard required construction, roofs anchored to the foundation, impact resistant windows and doors and roll down storm shutters. All that in lieu of sticks, nails and a prayer that nearly every new building in Florida is currently built on. Far more practical than "everyone leave Florida forever".

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

It's not realistic to beep fighting the ocean. The earth is mostly void of people. The effort to make a new city, especially one planned to be resource efficient will be much cheaper to move people.

[–] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I believe the same issues played out in New Jersey with their Blue Acres program. Iirc they would offer loans for upgrades or buy-outs to move, often the upgrades would fail a few years later so in the later versions of the programs it is buy-out only. NJ Blue Acres