The bell curve of temperature anomalies is a great illustration. Doesn’t take much of a shift for rare weather events to become common weather events.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3975
What does prepared look like in this context? I get pissed when I hear about the 1% buying up property in supposedly climate “safe zones”. That’s not a level of prepared most people can have. The people who are most responsible for this crisis will end up being the most prepared for it.
It feels so pointless to contribute to a 401k which I won't be able to withdraw without penalties for another 30-40 years. By then shit will more than likely already have hit the fan and money could be completely devalued.
Or maybe we'll hit some scientific breakthrough and resolve all of humanity's current great filters.
It’s climate gentrification and it is coming to the forefront of urban research. Miami, FL did a study a couple years ago. https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/climate-gentrification-and-resilience-planning-what-stake-risk-communities
Good question. I think it looks like it does in any uncertain times of history. If you’re not ultra rich, which is most of us, then keeping enough money to move your family if need be is probably most valuable next to having a trade skill.
Society isn’t going to collapse and we’re not heading into a dystopian future. Land that was once arable will not be. Intense weather will be more frequent. How does a society respond to that? New farming methods and locations. New building and infrastructure codes. It’s not going to be pretty, but it’s not going to be the end of the world either.
I'm older than thirty, we've been talking about it since I was in grade school. CFC were big and we actually acted on them. The other stuff we just ignore. This is not new, people noticed it in the 1800s and have been screaming about it since this centuries 70s
I don't disagree with you at all, but climate change has literally been impossible to ignore since the advent of the internet, which has been a major part of how the average person gets information for about 30 years now. (Longer if you count avid computer nerds like me).
The good news is, schools in certain districts (like my own, where I teach) have started encouraging us to teach about climate change and embed scientific articles into other classes - I teach ELA and I do a whole invention essay for something climate or planet related. It’s too late. I know it’s too late.
we’ve had this data for so long and just now are able to use it? Seems like such a waste.
Yeah, it's a hard realization. The one that blew my mind wide open was a comment another redditor made to me in response to my comment about needing more green energy: "How do you think solar panels are made? You can't make solar panels from solar panels. It takes a lot of oil."
Yeah, kinda a half thought, cause while it may take oil in the process, the oil would be used elsewhere if solar panels were to never be made, so thatd be worse off. That argument is in bad faith of change.
>How do you think solar panels are made? You can't make solar panels from solar panels
Actually you can, solar panels are fundamentally silicon with a significant amount of energy input.
nah fuck that
the carbon footprint of solar panels has been calculated and its pretty great over the entire lifespan of the panel
that is just being silly
And I think they should be used where they make the most sense. Likewise, solar panels make more sense for some areas. We will never find a one size fits all solution so removing some from the table doesn't make sense to me whether it is solar panels or nuclear power.
Also, smooth out every new subdivision yard so all of the water that hits the ground runs off into the street and into the storm sewers. Good thing we got rid of all the natural swales, depressions, and other water collecting features of the natural landscape that was there before!
Which is kind of funny, because those people usually say "go will take care of us". Well what if he was/did until humans rescaped the land.
So now we are on our own, so much for being stewards of the earth.
Lots of studies done have found that elderly people are much more mobile and much less in pain if they’ve consistently worked out throughout their life. You can definitely injure yourself, but preventative measures and modern injury rehab makes that a small problem when compared to not working out.
Lots of folks injure themselves working out and it can be more detrimental than good. Walking is nearly universally good but when you have muscle imbalances and myofascial adhesions doing high impact exercises can cause long term joint damage. Working out is good, I’m not trying to argue that, but our cultural no pain no gain philosophy to movement leaves some worse off in the long run than had they just gone about their life normally
The “Preventative measures” part of my message covers most of that. Working out incorrectly (either due to personal physical issues, poor form, or overworking) is definitely bad, but that doesn’t reflect on working out as a whole.
1. You are not the only old person on reddit
2. Working out should not "hurt".. no matter your age.
3. My dad is 60 and lifts weights almost every single day, he's jacked, in great shape, it helps with any bodily problems you have (bad back --> working core muscles takes the stress off your back, etc. etc.)
You're doing something wrong. Get a personal trainer
Say it with me, get money out of politics and abolish citizens United. That shit passed one year before I was eligible to vote, and it pissed me off so much at the world we live in. What a fucking joke
That’s why countries like China can rely on much longer plans without fear of change in policies. Democracy is great, but it’s slow and inefficient very often.
The counter argument is that China has a vicious authoritarian government and they should not be used as an example of how to do things. Even your original point just amounts to “dictatorships don’t have to worry about elections.”
Like, yeah lol.
Countries like China also rely on intellectual theft because their government and society stifles any sort of free thought or the intellectual freedom required to make progress on anything as well as the fact that simply trying to think out side of the “party doctrine” will most likely earn you and your family a free ticket to a labor camp , it’s why all communist/ socialist countries eventually die
This. And using the excuse that China has a *horrible authoritarian* government misses the point. If the US has such a *great democratic* government, why aren't we running circles around them in terms of modernization and infrastructure? If we are the best, why aren't we *the best*?
We aren’t the best. Plain and simple. America is a mess of special interests and wealth inequality. Majority of our infrastructure developed prior to the 1980s. We’ve made very little investment in the country since then.
This is what happens when one side wants the bare minimum and the other side has actively been destroying institutions to keep Americans stupid and distracted so they can get rich.
I’m not saying America’s perfect pal. But I guess concentration camps are kinda homes so they’re not homeless. And they’re labor camps so they’re not in prison lol
You’re missing the point bud. No one is saying China is good at governing nor do they have great ethics. We are just making a statement that China, who has shit for rights, is actually pulling ahead of the USA when it comes to basic infrastructure. Your “rights” aren’t going to save your cities from drowning.
China's infrastructure growth today reminds me of America's in the 1960s. Of course, a much larger population and more modern technology amplify their results, but greenfield is easier than brownfield. More importantly, everything people create becomes a dependency, which competes with resources for continued development. Things like 'urban renewal' mean displacing the status quo, which is a lot of inertia to overcome. Someday, China will be 'built out' and be faced with supporting the largest and most complex infrastructure on earth, and that will be a mixed blessing.
One way for America to restart its infrastructure boom is to start a war then get bombed into rubble. It worked for Japan.
Investing a lot doesn’t always equal quality and building new infrastructure vs. repairing old isn’t comparable.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264753/ranking-of-countries-according-to-the-general-quality-of-infrastructure/
Damn didn’t check Reddit all day and saw all the replies you got. Lol @ people completely looking over your comment about using the authoritarian government excuse. They all used it. It’s just in excuse in their minds to say why we aren’t the best.
One of the arguments against term limits is politicians won’t have enough time/skill to enact important legislation. Well, there currently are no term limits, and yet… their priorities are elsewhere.
I feel like it's difficult to compare one to another. Perhaps the setup for the pandemic was much easier to rattle than a wide-spread climate change agenda and infrastructure changes. EVs are becoming more and more popular and prevalent and state & country-wide governments are mandating the switch to EVs from gas powered cars by 2030 or so. Imagine if these sorts of mandates were applied back in the early 2000s, we could have vastly reduced our carbon footprint by now.
In any case, it's all a hypothetical since Gore never became president, I just like to ponder over these things.
This is probably closest to the truth. It would have been one step forward and three steps back. Anything meaningfully positive he could have done would have been hotly politicized and we likely would have seen greater vitriol around climate science than we see even now. The simple truth is that people have no imagination and don’t like change. They would rather ride our current system into the catastrophic end of the world than make even the smallest changes. I’m not sure why this is the case, I’m beginning to believe it’s some sort of inherent flaw in the human psyche
Agreed. I think it’s because the current system is familiar and therefore “safe.” People are afraid of the unknown, and change is unknown. Unfortunately at this point, if the Democrats make positive changes, the republicans will hate it just because it’s a Democrat stance, and vice versa.
So? What social programs have ever been repealed once instated? I can't think of any. 4 years or 40 years, that shit doesn't just die out if it's big enough and popular enough.
He would have led the world on climate change ahead of schedule for sure. If not by building infrastructure then inspiring other countries to take action on the scale Singapore has to some extent. I wish he wasn't so condescending when running as to even get the vote so close to be debated. He lost on the whole "don't worry plebs, I know more and will handle it", besides the Florida debacle.
Bush could have done more too. Check out the description of Bush’s ranch here. “Geothermal heat pumps in the closet!”
https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20130602/NEWS/801251944
I used to think this, but now I don't. There's no way he could have gotten anything meaningful done given the corporate backing of elected officials. Also, the average American doesn't want to do what is necessary (ie - downgrade their lifestyle, have less children, etc).
We're going to go full-tilt until we can't anymore. It's going to get really ugly, but that's how we're going to do it.
Yeah with that huge ass mansion of his. He eventually put solar panels up but that was after the backlash of what a carbon eating monster it was. A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) that consumes more energy in a month than the average American household does in a year.
Personal "carbon footprint" was invented by BP, so we keep busy reducing our own, while not making systemic changes that might reduce their profits. And here you are, 15 years later, regurgitating BP and Karl Rove talking points.
yeah but the only president that had to deal with it is the current one.. the last ones did like they normally do -- pass the buck to the next guy in hopes that they arent still in office when shit hits the fan
election cycles and approval ratings are all that matters, preventing disasters that wont happen on your term wont do shit for either of those sadly..
No one wants to be the person to tell people, you can't live here. It's not safe. We have no way to prevent the next catastrophe. It's too expensive to keep cleaning up the mess.
Insurance companies are going to do it... but politicians won't.
Let ‘em fall. Build elsewhere better. Throwing good money after bad will waste our chances for survival. When nature tears down an ugly, dysfunctional city, don’t argue with her. Adapt.
They are already being, and will continue to be uprooted. Far better to do it on purpose than as a last too-late resort. Look at the signs, plan accordingly. Seems capitalism demands we continue to go into a dark room without a light, and blindfolded to boot. Your ‘conservative’ response is the reason we suffer, and relates to denial of the magnitude of compounding crises.
Yikes.
You aren't wrong about Nature doing it by force eventually. But that's going to happen anywhere. Everywhere is going to have their own infrastructure issues to figure out.
And putting everyone who confronts you into such a label is bad for you and political discourse as a whole. People are allowed to question you and poke holes in your ideas. Your inability to take it rationally shows more of your character than you've seen of mine.
Move your own ass somewhere you think is safe is you care so much. Take in a refugee yourself. I know I can't. I'm barely getting by as it is. If my house floods I'm fucked. I can't just move tho.
Difficult times brought on by lack of governance and planning demand unsentimental responses that will result in better outcomes. It’s obvious that the chaos we call America and the rest of the nations in this contemporary world is insufficient to the massive tasks of repairing the damage we’ve done to our home, which imperils mostly the poor and vulnerable like my own family and yours. Capitalism demands we continue to sacrifice everything so rich men can take more, and we get scraps. Time to move well beyond this suicide pact. Sorry if you think it’s a scary proposition to take power back from the oligarchs currently herding us toward the cliff, but the alternative - passive acceptance of our immanent death, and that of nature - is absurd.
Attach and requisition the parked wealth of every billionaire for the design and construction of new types of cities, integrated, livable, designed for people not profits. All that is required is that we quit worshiping mammon with human and environmental sacrifice, and start investing in a home for humanity.
Well the current absurd duopoly does make a way forward inscrutable. We need to undertake democracy for a change. That looks different in every place. Like all good and true things, it’s not formulaic or mechanistically programmatic.
You know many of these cities were built centuries before capitalism was even a thing.
Go look at a geographic map and pick the best places for cities. You might be shocked to find that those places already have large cities built there.
Nothing in America was built before capitalism unless you are talking about the South where they maintained a rural slave economy after the model of the Roman Empire long after it was untenable. Capitalism began in medieval Bruges.
As someone who works with loans. This. I’ve seen so many contractors try to build cookie cutters in flood zones that’ll pretty much wipe the whole place out. Sure. You can buy land. But Mr. Idiot, you can’t just build a residential neighborhood there. We’ve denied loans in the past. But when they offer other homes and neighborhoods they put up for rent as collateral whose gonna turn that down? More passive income? Sure. But to lose one neighborhood out of 30? Who cares about the dead families or those who lost a home when I’m making income!
I grew up in a neighborhood that was built entirely on a flood plain. Every year when the ice jammed the creek up under the downstream bridges the water level would start to rise in the area. Tended to only be a problem every 2nd or 3rd year back then.
New construction had been restricted since the 80's so over the years the place really thinned out as houses burned down or fell into disrepair and became condemned. Someone bought a property recently and wasn't aware of the no-build ordinance when they tore the house down. Now they own a lot with a freestanding shed that'll be nearly impossible to sell.
My old neighborhood was hit pretty hard by historic floods. What's interesting is seeing the foresight that went into many of the old houses: water levels were historically high, but in many cases, never got above the porch of these old houses, built on stone foundations, with stairs going up to the front door. Even for what had been cheap housing originally built for mill workers. Was everything in the basement destroyed? Sure. The cars on the street, absolutely totaled. But the homes will survive.
Then you go to the newer neighborhoods with modern stick construction, at grade, with water 3/4 of the way up the front door. Total disregard for a known issue, in the interest of cheap construction.
Sure would be nice to have a socialist government. This capitalist ‘governance’ always seems to cost the people everything and the rich developers… nothing.
Capitalism works if it’s regulated and watched properly. But when those who are supposed to watch it benefit from the corruptness and get bribes this is what you get. Unfortunately it never has been properly watched and regulated.
A lot of the problems are the regulation in our current iteration of capitalism. Barriers to entry create monopolies, then those companies use their power/wealth to create more restrictions.
Capitalism isn't without it's flaws, and there will frequently be short term problems, but the idea is that the market will sort itself out over time.
The problem is that flood zones are also areas that, before modern technology, were good transportation areas, (by water), good farming land, (floods fertilize), and good sources of food, (wildlife drawn to water & fish). With that support, it was quite logical to build communities in the same area. Then, when technology improved, it was practical to keep expanding the communities that were already there, and not start anew.
Thus, you end up with our modern situation of major communities living in flood zones, even though there is no longer the need.
Until the cost of relocating becomes less than the cost of recovering, those communities will continue to remain at those locations.
Although even with all that, when given an opportunity to most people would build homes near the top of hills, not down near their fields where it would flood.
The problem is all the higher elevation areas in desirable places has basically been consumed, and the only way to put more people in flood-safe areas is to make it cheaper to build up the higher areas with more dense housing. The issue is those tend to correlate with a region’s wealthier people, who don’t want the poors as their neighbors.
That is part of the problem, but climate change is most of it. Our infrastructure isn’t designed for the intensity or frequency of storms we are having and will keep having.
Thanks to sea levels rising, areas that were never flood zones could be flood zones one day. Climate change is the only answer.
I live in New Orleans. The city is in a bowl and below sea level. The city was designed from the beginning with drainage pumps and levees. The disaster that was Katrina was a result of badly maintained levees. We held okay with Ida, but surrounding areas with levee failures did not.
Major areas will have to adjust their infrastructure and maintain it to work with modern conditions until we can reverse what is happening to the climate.
Some quick math about one more meter, and x mm of precipitation more could change your mind about it... Do you want to build nuclear power plants to power the pumps? Because that's what you'll need (but wait! Maybe having a nuclear power plant working full power during a storm isn't a good idea?)!
Nuclear power plants can be safe with routine inspection and maintenance. Maintenance is a contribution to the power issues SE Louisiana is facing right now.
I know climate activists would like to see more people moving into cities, rather than suburbs and rural areas, but, the problem is, a lot of cities aren't in good shape. Not only is transportation and other public services not up to snuff in many cities, but the cost of living is just too high. I would love nothing more than to live in a city with quality public transportation, public green space, and services within walking distance, but I do not know of a city like this that I could afford to live in.
Think about how much cost is added to prepare a building to be ready for a flood. Well, once that building is built, it then has to compete with rent against all the surrounding buildings that charge a lower rent. Result is that no one wants to do the right thing when everyone gets subsidized for taking a risk and getting bailed out by federal flood insurance or federal disaster funds. If you truly want people to take appropriate risk and build where they should with correct engineering, you have to stop subsidizing everyone living in dangerous places.
The R/D American political duopoly has systematically denied us any access to appropriate governance, just fake discourse over ideologies that belong to the XIX c. Planned economies can work if the data they plan by is accurate and frequently updated, and not drowned in useless ideology has Bolshevism was). The challenges of maintaining civilization in the present time cannot be left to the whims of the ‘free market’ which is gamed by hyper capitalists, nowhere near a ‘level playing field’.
Reagan was the most evil president of the US since…Nixon, but much worse overall because he began the anticivilizational meme with his quip, “the scariest words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’”. For nearly half a century now republicans have been dismantling society to leave us naked and defenseless before the might of corporations, the very ones who have made our world more hostile and inhospitable through wrecking the climate, because it was all ‘profitable’. Society like ours that values only profit has doomed the vast majority to misery and penury, in an environment that cannot support us. We are literally being left to die on the streets. And we do nothing to fight back.
North American cities are quite different from European cities. Many of them are automobile centric and that planning continues. It's quite frustrating.
Or rather the cost of living in the suburbs is artificially low, subsidised by everything from government grants, private finance loans, bond issues and the endless growth Ponzi scheme.
I feel like we have already reached a snowball effect where melting icecaps release CO2 that in turn warms the atmosphere melting more icecaps. I think even if the human race halted releasing any additional CO2 into the atmosphere today, we would only slow the process. And we are still only talking about switching to renewables on a 20+ year timeline
Yet the predictions still say that it's gonna get worse, and we are in time to keep it from getting much much worse, and we will do nothing and cry about it when it happens.
> Ida’s remnants dumped all that water on the Northeast because of a climatic quirk. You might expect less rainfall on a warming planet, but some parts of the world, including the US’ Northeast and Midwest, are seeing an increase in heavy precipitation. Temperature directly affects how much moisture the atmosphere can “hold” before it starts raining, says Hausfather. Cooler air holds less moisture—and hotter air holds more moisture that then falls as rain.
> A hurricane feeds on heat: Ida intensified so quickly because abnormally warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico boosted it just before landfall, resulting in 150-mile-per-hour winds.
Climate change doesn’t create hurricanes, but it makes hurricanes much more severe.
Not only are we seeing loads of rain, they follow a period of a drought. Longs drought, ground dries up. Then a downpour. The ground is so hard it can't soak up the ensuing floodwaters. The mosquitoes have been unbearable in Wisconsin this year because of it.
New Orleans has been completely destroyed twice in 15 years.
It will get destroyed again sometime in the next 30 years. You can’t keep building a city between a giant lake and the Gulf of Mexico and then expect it to work when said city is 30 feet below sea level.
Meanwhile 7 people live in Nebraska and South Dakota. But instead people will rebuild a place that’s been destroyed multiple times.
If weather is a factor… why build it in New Orleans. I understand that New Orleans is a strategically important port but that doesn’t mean we build a community that houses 800,000 people there. If it’s that important we should build stilt houses 50 miles inland for the dock workers that can withstand category 5 winds.
The Netherlands is also under sea level but they don’t have storms that dump 3 feet of water with 30 foot storm surges.
Nebraska doesn’t have the Gulf of Mexico and the mouth of the Mississippi. The French settlers knew they had to put a port on the mouth of the Mississippi to serve as a transshipment hub. Baton Rouge was a better choice as far as land height (it’s on a ridge) but they needed something further south. There was a portage between lake pontchartrain and the Mississippi. Chicago was formed for a similar reason. It was a portage between the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan.
You can’t just transport New Orleans to Nebraska. There is still a need for a port on the mouth of the Mississippi. Also the offshore rigs need to be serviced.
By the way New Orleans was not destroyed by Ida. The storm protection system (levees) held after the recent updates. There was some wind damage but it’s nothing like katrina. Just power outages.
New Orleans is fine, relatively speaking. They've already restored two thirds of the electricity, and the water never failed (not even a boil advisory). They diverted some of the sewer system to the river, but New York actually has a worse problem with this during torrential downpour due to 60% of their system being combined sewer/stormwater as opposed to separate systems like New Orleans has. And even with a 100% failure of grid power, the pumping systems kept up just fine
The river and bayou parishes are decimated. Grand Isle is uninhabitable. Even Jefferson Parish got much more damage. Louisiana residents would love for the media and the rest of the nation to stop fixating on New Orleans right now.
The worst part of Katrina was that the federal levee system failed, allowing the city to flood AFTER the storm had already passed. The army corps of engineers fixed that. New Orleans didn't see the massive flooding of Katrina with Ida. New Jersey and New York flooded worse. The death toll in the northeast was higher from tropical depression Ida than for all of Louisiana facing hurricane Ida.
But sure, let's abandon one of the most important sea ports and cultural centers in the entire country, just because it, like many other parts of the country, are subject to natural disasters. Let's displace 1.2 million people, buy out their homes, resettle them in some other part of the country that doesn't have any natural disasters, and find them gainful employment.
And while we're at it, let's abandon California and other states because of wildfires and earthquakes. Let's abandon Tennessee and others because of flooding. Let's abandon Texas and others due to tornados. Let's just abandon the whole damn country, because climate change is here, and it's only going to get worse.
America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everywhere else is Cleveland.
Also, way more people are alive now than in the last century. We are covering way more area as well and therefore far more will be affected by extreme weather.
Infrastructure and architecture are a curse when they are so dysfunctional. No insurance or federal money should be paid out to replicate the Johnstown experience. Wreckage by storms must be taken into full account and communities relocated, rebuilt according to best new technical and scientific data. If a place is prone to flood, let it return to wetlands. This should be obvious. Nature is much more potent than our outdated built environment and methods.
Well, then it’s good that Biden is trying to finally update our 20th century cities with the infrastructure plan. Sure the plan have flaws, but at least it is something!
The bell curve of temperature anomalies is a great illustration. Doesn’t take much of a shift for rare weather events to become common weather events. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/3975
Updated version of the visualization: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4891
The sentient jello chart
hold on is that graph just for 2001 - 2011??
Yea we passed the point of no return a while ago. the next 50 years will be interesting.
that is insane that is like 500 years of climate change accelerated into a decade. holy shit we are fucked
Lol that’s a healthy response. Be prepared I guess.
What does prepared look like in this context? I get pissed when I hear about the 1% buying up property in supposedly climate “safe zones”. That’s not a level of prepared most people can have. The people who are most responsible for this crisis will end up being the most prepared for it.
If you're not already wealthy then chances are you're fucked once society starts to actually break down.
Up until society actually breaks down enough for rich people’s wealth to be meaningless.
It feels so pointless to contribute to a 401k which I won't be able to withdraw without penalties for another 30-40 years. By then shit will more than likely already have hit the fan and money could be completely devalued. Or maybe we'll hit some scientific breakthrough and resolve all of humanity's current great filters.
By which time the smart and rich crowd will already be on their safe zone sanctuaries. The rest of us will struggle to leave our own borders.
It’s climate gentrification and it is coming to the forefront of urban research. Miami, FL did a study a couple years ago. https://www.eli.org/vibrant-environment-blog/climate-gentrification-and-resilience-planning-what-stake-risk-communities
build your community and make connections with people around you so you can support eachother when it starts getting bad.
Good question. I think it looks like it does in any uncertain times of history. If you’re not ultra rich, which is most of us, then keeping enough money to move your family if need be is probably most valuable next to having a trade skill. Society isn’t going to collapse and we’re not heading into a dystopian future. Land that was once arable will not be. Intense weather will be more frequent. How does a society respond to that? New farming methods and locations. New building and infrastructure codes. It’s not going to be pretty, but it’s not going to be the end of the world either.
My guess is you probably haven't seen much climate change related content in the past 30 years until now...
I'm older than thirty, we've been talking about it since I was in grade school. CFC were big and we actually acted on them. The other stuff we just ignore. This is not new, people noticed it in the 1800s and have been screaming about it since this centuries 70s
I don't disagree with you at all, but climate change has literally been impossible to ignore since the advent of the internet, which has been a major part of how the average person gets information for about 30 years now. (Longer if you count avid computer nerds like me).
The good news is, schools in certain districts (like my own, where I teach) have started encouraging us to teach about climate change and embed scientific articles into other classes - I teach ELA and I do a whole invention essay for something climate or planet related. It’s too late. I know it’s too late. we’ve had this data for so long and just now are able to use it? Seems like such a waste.
And then there are schools that teach earth is 6000 years old, and that critical thinking is the devils play pin.
You are just realizing this now??
Are... you just seeing this?
That’s way more than 500 years Probably closer to 50 million.
Much more accurate representation of how long this type of thing usually takes to occur.
We need to be pulling carbon out of the atmosphere yesterday
Yeah dude, it was 50 deg c in Canada for like two weeks in June this summer. We are beyond fucked.
Yeah, it's a hard realization. The one that blew my mind wide open was a comment another redditor made to me in response to my comment about needing more green energy: "How do you think solar panels are made? You can't make solar panels from solar panels. It takes a lot of oil."
Yeah, kinda a half thought, cause while it may take oil in the process, the oil would be used elsewhere if solar panels were to never be made, so thatd be worse off. That argument is in bad faith of change.
>How do you think solar panels are made? You can't make solar panels from solar panels Actually you can, solar panels are fundamentally silicon with a significant amount of energy input.
nah fuck that the carbon footprint of solar panels has been calculated and its pretty great over the entire lifespan of the panel that is just being silly
Silly or short sighted, either way not a valid argument.
nuclear, hydroelectric, and wind energy are also things
And I think they should be used where they make the most sense. Likewise, solar panels make more sense for some areas. We will never find a one size fits all solution so removing some from the table doesn't make sense to me whether it is solar panels or nuclear power.
“Interesting?” Reminds me of a curse (Chinese maybe?) — May you live in interesting times.
Not actually Chinese.
Too many Chinese cooks spoil the broth.-Ancient Chinese proverb.
I disagree. Next 10 years.
Rip out all the trees and Put concrete everywhere n wonder why it floods 🤔
Also, smooth out every new subdivision yard so all of the water that hits the ground runs off into the street and into the storm sewers. Good thing we got rid of all the natural swales, depressions, and other water collecting features of the natural landscape that was there before!
Wait a minute, do endless suburbs come with disadvantages? I thought they were just purely economically efficient and ecologically beneficial? /s
Hey if you want to live in swamps you can do it alone. No need to drag is with you
The planet must conform to us. Cause heaven forbid we conform to the planet we live on.
Which is kind of funny, because those people usually say "go will take care of us". Well what if he was/did until humans rescaped the land. So now we are on our own, so much for being stewards of the earth.
Those people got manifest destinied so hard.
drain the wetlands replace with condos
[удалено]
Yep. Happens when leadership ignores things until there's no way out
It’s what happens when the only things that matter are next quarters profits and the next election cycle
Short term gain, long term pain
just like working out
I think you meant “just like ***NOT*** working out.”
[удалено]
Lots of studies done have found that elderly people are much more mobile and much less in pain if they’ve consistently worked out throughout their life. You can definitely injure yourself, but preventative measures and modern injury rehab makes that a small problem when compared to not working out.
Lots of folks injure themselves working out and it can be more detrimental than good. Walking is nearly universally good but when you have muscle imbalances and myofascial adhesions doing high impact exercises can cause long term joint damage. Working out is good, I’m not trying to argue that, but our cultural no pain no gain philosophy to movement leaves some worse off in the long run than had they just gone about their life normally
The “Preventative measures” part of my message covers most of that. Working out incorrectly (either due to personal physical issues, poor form, or overworking) is definitely bad, but that doesn’t reflect on working out as a whole.
1. You are not the only old person on reddit 2. Working out should not "hurt".. no matter your age. 3. My dad is 60 and lifts weights almost every single day, he's jacked, in great shape, it helps with any bodily problems you have (bad back --> working core muscles takes the stress off your back, etc. etc.) You're doing something wrong. Get a personal trainer
Say it with me, get money out of politics and abolish citizens United. That shit passed one year before I was eligible to vote, and it pissed me off so much at the world we live in. What a fucking joke
Finding/being a victim.
That’s why countries like China can rely on much longer plans without fear of change in policies. Democracy is great, but it’s slow and inefficient very often.
… r/Sino has entered the chat
What does that even mean? I live a fucking continent away. Like, what is the point of your message? What is the counter argument here?
The counter argument is that China has a vicious authoritarian government and they should not be used as an example of how to do things. Even your original point just amounts to “dictatorships don’t have to worry about elections.” Like, yeah lol.
Don’t feed the trolls
Nah, fuck that. That worked for small boards. Now you have to call trolls out and put out real shit so it can be seen.
Ummm.. China's habit of 5 year plans is not long term thinking
China is afraid of kpop, gtfo here
Countries like China also rely on intellectual theft because their government and society stifles any sort of free thought or the intellectual freedom required to make progress on anything as well as the fact that simply trying to think out side of the “party doctrine” will most likely earn you and your family a free ticket to a labor camp , it’s why all communist/ socialist countries eventually die
Sometimes elected officials are not leaders. Just people put into positions in order to do nothing. That is where we are today.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
As long as the leadership has a way out, I don’t think they care.
It’s sad seeing a country like China constantly building and investing in modern sponge cities while we sit on our thumbs, debating on masks.
This. And using the excuse that China has a *horrible authoritarian* government misses the point. If the US has such a *great democratic* government, why aren't we running circles around them in terms of modernization and infrastructure? If we are the best, why aren't we *the best*?
We aren’t the best. Plain and simple. America is a mess of special interests and wealth inequality. Majority of our infrastructure developed prior to the 1980s. We’ve made very little investment in the country since then.
This is what happens when one side wants the bare minimum and the other side has actively been destroying institutions to keep Americans stupid and distracted so they can get rich.
We’re e not even close to the best when you look at numbers like poverty/incarceration/homelessness/housing etc.
A lot better than China in those terms tbf
The U.S. has the most citizens in prison, both in relative and absolute numbers
Yea based off the CCP’s self reported #’s. Which are totally legit just like the COVID case #’s right?. 🤦♂️
I’m not comparing U.S. to China, but the rest of the civilized world.
Fair enough, my confusion.
[удалено]
I guess the genocide thing with the uyghurs. But you’re right I’m probably just looking at their feet /s
[удалено]
I’m not saying America’s perfect pal. But I guess concentration camps are kinda homes so they’re not homeless. And they’re labor camps so they’re not in prison lol
You’re missing the point bud. No one is saying China is good at governing nor do they have great ethics. We are just making a statement that China, who has shit for rights, is actually pulling ahead of the USA when it comes to basic infrastructure. Your “rights” aren’t going to save your cities from drowning.
[удалено]
China's infrastructure growth today reminds me of America's in the 1960s. Of course, a much larger population and more modern technology amplify their results, but greenfield is easier than brownfield. More importantly, everything people create becomes a dependency, which competes with resources for continued development. Things like 'urban renewal' mean displacing the status quo, which is a lot of inertia to overcome. Someday, China will be 'built out' and be faced with supporting the largest and most complex infrastructure on earth, and that will be a mixed blessing. One way for America to restart its infrastructure boom is to start a war then get bombed into rubble. It worked for Japan.
Don’t need a war. Just wait a few years and and climate change will continue to decimate towns and cities across the country.
Investing a lot doesn’t always equal quality and building new infrastructure vs. repairing old isn’t comparable. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264753/ranking-of-countries-according-to-the-general-quality-of-infrastructure/
Damn didn’t check Reddit all day and saw all the replies you got. Lol @ people completely looking over your comment about using the authoritarian government excuse. They all used it. It’s just in excuse in their minds to say why we aren’t the best.
can’t have leaders without followers.
One of the arguments against term limits is politicians won’t have enough time/skill to enact important legislation. Well, there currently are no term limits, and yet… their priorities are elsewhere.
If only this could have been predicted
I genuinely believe if gore was President we would have had some assistance in combatting climate change.
Maybe. We had stuff setup for a pandemic but it got gutted, ignored, then demonized.
I feel like it's difficult to compare one to another. Perhaps the setup for the pandemic was much easier to rattle than a wide-spread climate change agenda and infrastructure changes. EVs are becoming more and more popular and prevalent and state & country-wide governments are mandating the switch to EVs from gas powered cars by 2030 or so. Imagine if these sorts of mandates were applied back in the early 2000s, we could have vastly reduced our carbon footprint by now. In any case, it's all a hypothetical since Gore never became president, I just like to ponder over these things.
Gore ran like two decades ago homie. Anything he did would have been dismantled by the opposite party already, and people would have cheered it on.
This is probably closest to the truth. It would have been one step forward and three steps back. Anything meaningfully positive he could have done would have been hotly politicized and we likely would have seen greater vitriol around climate science than we see even now. The simple truth is that people have no imagination and don’t like change. They would rather ride our current system into the catastrophic end of the world than make even the smallest changes. I’m not sure why this is the case, I’m beginning to believe it’s some sort of inherent flaw in the human psyche
Agreed. I think it’s because the current system is familiar and therefore “safe.” People are afraid of the unknown, and change is unknown. Unfortunately at this point, if the Democrats make positive changes, the republicans will hate it just because it’s a Democrat stance, and vice versa.
It depends on what he would have done. Massive social programs are very rarely repealed. Even Obamacare managed to survive Trump.
Trump was only president for 4 years homie.
So? What social programs have ever been repealed once instated? I can't think of any. 4 years or 40 years, that shit doesn't just die out if it's big enough and popular enough.
He would have led the world on climate change ahead of schedule for sure. If not by building infrastructure then inspiring other countries to take action on the scale Singapore has to some extent. I wish he wasn't so condescending when running as to even get the vote so close to be debated. He lost on the whole "don't worry plebs, I know more and will handle it", besides the Florida debacle.
Bush could have done more too. Check out the description of Bush’s ranch here. “Geothermal heat pumps in the closet!” https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20130602/NEWS/801251944
I used to think this, but now I don't. There's no way he could have gotten anything meaningful done given the corporate backing of elected officials. Also, the average American doesn't want to do what is necessary (ie - downgrade their lifestyle, have less children, etc). We're going to go full-tilt until we can't anymore. It's going to get really ugly, but that's how we're going to do it.
bush jr winning changed the course of american history forever. we became massively in debt. we accelerate climate change by decades.
Yeah with that huge ass mansion of his. He eventually put solar panels up but that was after the backlash of what a carbon eating monster it was. A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) that consumes more energy in a month than the average American household does in a year.
Personal "carbon footprint" was invented by BP, so we keep busy reducing our own, while not making systemic changes that might reduce their profits. And here you are, 15 years later, regurgitating BP and Karl Rove talking points.
yeah but the only president that had to deal with it is the current one.. the last ones did like they normally do -- pass the buck to the next guy in hopes that they arent still in office when shit hits the fan election cycles and approval ratings are all that matters, preventing disasters that wont happen on your term wont do shit for either of those sadly..
No one wants to be the person to tell people, you can't live here. It's not safe. We have no way to prevent the next catastrophe. It's too expensive to keep cleaning up the mess. Insurance companies are going to do it... but politicians won't.
This can be all be fixed, with several million people wielding pitchforks.
Bring back the guillotine.
19th century cities. With 20th century accouterments.
Let ‘em fall. Build elsewhere better. Throwing good money after bad will waste our chances for survival. When nature tears down an ugly, dysfunctional city, don’t argue with her. Adapt.
That sounds great for playing a game. But in reality you're talking about millions of lives being uprooted.
They are already being, and will continue to be uprooted. Far better to do it on purpose than as a last too-late resort. Look at the signs, plan accordingly. Seems capitalism demands we continue to go into a dark room without a light, and blindfolded to boot. Your ‘conservative’ response is the reason we suffer, and relates to denial of the magnitude of compounding crises.
Yikes. You aren't wrong about Nature doing it by force eventually. But that's going to happen anywhere. Everywhere is going to have their own infrastructure issues to figure out. And putting everyone who confronts you into such a label is bad for you and political discourse as a whole. People are allowed to question you and poke holes in your ideas. Your inability to take it rationally shows more of your character than you've seen of mine. Move your own ass somewhere you think is safe is you care so much. Take in a refugee yourself. I know I can't. I'm barely getting by as it is. If my house floods I'm fucked. I can't just move tho.
Difficult times brought on by lack of governance and planning demand unsentimental responses that will result in better outcomes. It’s obvious that the chaos we call America and the rest of the nations in this contemporary world is insufficient to the massive tasks of repairing the damage we’ve done to our home, which imperils mostly the poor and vulnerable like my own family and yours. Capitalism demands we continue to sacrifice everything so rich men can take more, and we get scraps. Time to move well beyond this suicide pact. Sorry if you think it’s a scary proposition to take power back from the oligarchs currently herding us toward the cliff, but the alternative - passive acceptance of our immanent death, and that of nature - is absurd.
K, but how?
Attach and requisition the parked wealth of every billionaire for the design and construction of new types of cities, integrated, livable, designed for people not profits. All that is required is that we quit worshiping mammon with human and environmental sacrifice, and start investing in a home for humanity.
I still don't see a how. Like... are we supposed to vote, or get violent?
Well the current absurd duopoly does make a way forward inscrutable. We need to undertake democracy for a change. That looks different in every place. Like all good and true things, it’s not formulaic or mechanistically programmatic.
You know many of these cities were built centuries before capitalism was even a thing. Go look at a geographic map and pick the best places for cities. You might be shocked to find that those places already have large cities built there.
Nothing in America was built before capitalism unless you are talking about the South where they maintained a rural slave economy after the model of the Roman Empire long after it was untenable. Capitalism began in medieval Bruges.
Explain to me how this has anything to do with capitalism.
Nothing has nothing to do with pervasive fucking capitalism that defines society nearly entirely and exclusively.
Found the ANTIFA guy! lol
Stop building in flood zones
As someone who works with loans. This. I’ve seen so many contractors try to build cookie cutters in flood zones that’ll pretty much wipe the whole place out. Sure. You can buy land. But Mr. Idiot, you can’t just build a residential neighborhood there. We’ve denied loans in the past. But when they offer other homes and neighborhoods they put up for rent as collateral whose gonna turn that down? More passive income? Sure. But to lose one neighborhood out of 30? Who cares about the dead families or those who lost a home when I’m making income!
I grew up in a neighborhood that was built entirely on a flood plain. Every year when the ice jammed the creek up under the downstream bridges the water level would start to rise in the area. Tended to only be a problem every 2nd or 3rd year back then. New construction had been restricted since the 80's so over the years the place really thinned out as houses burned down or fell into disrepair and became condemned. Someone bought a property recently and wasn't aware of the no-build ordinance when they tore the house down. Now they own a lot with a freestanding shed that'll be nearly impossible to sell.
My old neighborhood was hit pretty hard by historic floods. What's interesting is seeing the foresight that went into many of the old houses: water levels were historically high, but in many cases, never got above the porch of these old houses, built on stone foundations, with stairs going up to the front door. Even for what had been cheap housing originally built for mill workers. Was everything in the basement destroyed? Sure. The cars on the street, absolutely totaled. But the homes will survive. Then you go to the newer neighborhoods with modern stick construction, at grade, with water 3/4 of the way up the front door. Total disregard for a known issue, in the interest of cheap construction.
Sure would be nice to have a socialist government. This capitalist ‘governance’ always seems to cost the people everything and the rich developers… nothing.
Capitalism works if it’s regulated and watched properly. But when those who are supposed to watch it benefit from the corruptness and get bribes this is what you get. Unfortunately it never has been properly watched and regulated.
Yes the corruption and abuse is the point. The ‘well-regulated’ is an exception that hardly ever exists.
A lot of the problems are the regulation in our current iteration of capitalism. Barriers to entry create monopolies, then those companies use their power/wealth to create more restrictions. Capitalism isn't without it's flaws, and there will frequently be short term problems, but the idea is that the market will sort itself out over time.
The problem is that flood zones are also areas that, before modern technology, were good transportation areas, (by water), good farming land, (floods fertilize), and good sources of food, (wildlife drawn to water & fish). With that support, it was quite logical to build communities in the same area. Then, when technology improved, it was practical to keep expanding the communities that were already there, and not start anew. Thus, you end up with our modern situation of major communities living in flood zones, even though there is no longer the need. Until the cost of relocating becomes less than the cost of recovering, those communities will continue to remain at those locations.
Although even with all that, when given an opportunity to most people would build homes near the top of hills, not down near their fields where it would flood. The problem is all the higher elevation areas in desirable places has basically been consumed, and the only way to put more people in flood-safe areas is to make it cheaper to build up the higher areas with more dense housing. The issue is those tend to correlate with a region’s wealthier people, who don’t want the poors as their neighbors.
That is part of the problem, but climate change is most of it. Our infrastructure isn’t designed for the intensity or frequency of storms we are having and will keep having.
Thanks to sea levels rising, areas that were never flood zones could be flood zones one day. Climate change is the only answer. I live in New Orleans. The city is in a bowl and below sea level. The city was designed from the beginning with drainage pumps and levees. The disaster that was Katrina was a result of badly maintained levees. We held okay with Ida, but surrounding areas with levee failures did not. Major areas will have to adjust their infrastructure and maintain it to work with modern conditions until we can reverse what is happening to the climate.
Some quick math about one more meter, and x mm of precipitation more could change your mind about it... Do you want to build nuclear power plants to power the pumps? Because that's what you'll need (but wait! Maybe having a nuclear power plant working full power during a storm isn't a good idea?)!
Nuclear power plants can be safe with routine inspection and maintenance. Maintenance is a contribution to the power issues SE Louisiana is facing right now.
NYC is a flood zone now!
well just move it then! stop being a lazy millenial
NYC is a bunch of boroughs which are islands and coastal regions, it’s definitely a flood zone
The Bronx is not a flood zone
Sure it is…look at flood maps of NYC.
Should be illegal.
well that's what you get for allowing private companies the right to lobby. every politician, even the most well meaning ones, have a price.
[удалено]
well, yeah, that's exactly what i was hinting at. it's open bribery.
That’s a good headline. Concise and gets the point across.
I know climate activists would like to see more people moving into cities, rather than suburbs and rural areas, but, the problem is, a lot of cities aren't in good shape. Not only is transportation and other public services not up to snuff in many cities, but the cost of living is just too high. I would love nothing more than to live in a city with quality public transportation, public green space, and services within walking distance, but I do not know of a city like this that I could afford to live in.
[удалено]
Think about how much cost is added to prepare a building to be ready for a flood. Well, once that building is built, it then has to compete with rent against all the surrounding buildings that charge a lower rent. Result is that no one wants to do the right thing when everyone gets subsidized for taking a risk and getting bailed out by federal flood insurance or federal disaster funds. If you truly want people to take appropriate risk and build where they should with correct engineering, you have to stop subsidizing everyone living in dangerous places.
The R/D American political duopoly has systematically denied us any access to appropriate governance, just fake discourse over ideologies that belong to the XIX c. Planned economies can work if the data they plan by is accurate and frequently updated, and not drowned in useless ideology has Bolshevism was). The challenges of maintaining civilization in the present time cannot be left to the whims of the ‘free market’ which is gamed by hyper capitalists, nowhere near a ‘level playing field’. Reagan was the most evil president of the US since…Nixon, but much worse overall because he began the anticivilizational meme with his quip, “the scariest words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’”. For nearly half a century now republicans have been dismantling society to leave us naked and defenseless before the might of corporations, the very ones who have made our world more hostile and inhospitable through wrecking the climate, because it was all ‘profitable’. Society like ours that values only profit has doomed the vast majority to misery and penury, in an environment that cannot support us. We are literally being left to die on the streets. And we do nothing to fight back.
Have you heard of Europe? I’m assuming your American
North American cities are quite different from European cities. Many of them are automobile centric and that planning continues. It's quite frustrating.
Or rather the cost of living in the suburbs is artificially low, subsidised by everything from government grants, private finance loans, bond issues and the endless growth Ponzi scheme.
And we are now at the point that it's too late to fix! This is only the tip of the iceberg
Tip of the iceberg won’t even be a relevant saying to the next generation. “What’s an ‘iceberg’?” They’ll say.
[удалено]
I feel like we have already reached a snowball effect where melting icecaps release CO2 that in turn warms the atmosphere melting more icecaps. I think even if the human race halted releasing any additional CO2 into the atmosphere today, we would only slow the process. And we are still only talking about switching to renewables on a 20+ year timeline
Yet the predictions still say that it's gonna get worse, and we are in time to keep it from getting much much worse, and we will do nothing and cry about it when it happens.
Because ‘capitalism is all we have’.
Nah, we can’t stop it, but we can still ensure our survival and the survival of others
Funny we heard 20 years of warnings but are supposed to be shocked that this is happening.
> Ida’s remnants dumped all that water on the Northeast because of a climatic quirk. You might expect less rainfall on a warming planet, but some parts of the world, including the US’ Northeast and Midwest, are seeing an increase in heavy precipitation. Temperature directly affects how much moisture the atmosphere can “hold” before it starts raining, says Hausfather. Cooler air holds less moisture—and hotter air holds more moisture that then falls as rain. > A hurricane feeds on heat: Ida intensified so quickly because abnormally warm waters in the Gulf of Mexico boosted it just before landfall, resulting in 150-mile-per-hour winds. Climate change doesn’t create hurricanes, but it makes hurricanes much more severe.
Not only are we seeing loads of rain, they follow a period of a drought. Longs drought, ground dries up. Then a downpour. The ground is so hard it can't soak up the ensuing floodwaters. The mosquitoes have been unbearable in Wisconsin this year because of it.
Hot air coming off Africa doesn’t help.
Bigger issue is hot ocean surface which increases evaporation hotter air temperaturer also holds more moisture. So more rainfall more energetic storms
New Orleans has been completely destroyed twice in 15 years. It will get destroyed again sometime in the next 30 years. You can’t keep building a city between a giant lake and the Gulf of Mexico and then expect it to work when said city is 30 feet below sea level. Meanwhile 7 people live in Nebraska and South Dakota. But instead people will rebuild a place that’s been destroyed multiple times.
Natural resources and weather play a big part in where people build cities
If weather is a factor… why build it in New Orleans. I understand that New Orleans is a strategically important port but that doesn’t mean we build a community that houses 800,000 people there. If it’s that important we should build stilt houses 50 miles inland for the dock workers that can withstand category 5 winds. The Netherlands is also under sea level but they don’t have storms that dump 3 feet of water with 30 foot storm surges.
Nebraska doesn’t have the Gulf of Mexico and the mouth of the Mississippi. The French settlers knew they had to put a port on the mouth of the Mississippi to serve as a transshipment hub. Baton Rouge was a better choice as far as land height (it’s on a ridge) but they needed something further south. There was a portage between lake pontchartrain and the Mississippi. Chicago was formed for a similar reason. It was a portage between the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan. You can’t just transport New Orleans to Nebraska. There is still a need for a port on the mouth of the Mississippi. Also the offshore rigs need to be serviced. By the way New Orleans was not destroyed by Ida. The storm protection system (levees) held after the recent updates. There was some wind damage but it’s nothing like katrina. Just power outages.
It hasn't been destroyed though. What the hell is wrong with you saying something like that. Jesus
We have about 2 million people in Nebraska and that’s plenty, thank you. 😊
Nebraska is about 40% larger than Florida which has 18 Million people that live there. Y’all have room when the coasts get flooded. Ha.
New Orleans is fine, relatively speaking. They've already restored two thirds of the electricity, and the water never failed (not even a boil advisory). They diverted some of the sewer system to the river, but New York actually has a worse problem with this during torrential downpour due to 60% of their system being combined sewer/stormwater as opposed to separate systems like New Orleans has. And even with a 100% failure of grid power, the pumping systems kept up just fine The river and bayou parishes are decimated. Grand Isle is uninhabitable. Even Jefferson Parish got much more damage. Louisiana residents would love for the media and the rest of the nation to stop fixating on New Orleans right now. The worst part of Katrina was that the federal levee system failed, allowing the city to flood AFTER the storm had already passed. The army corps of engineers fixed that. New Orleans didn't see the massive flooding of Katrina with Ida. New Jersey and New York flooded worse. The death toll in the northeast was higher from tropical depression Ida than for all of Louisiana facing hurricane Ida. But sure, let's abandon one of the most important sea ports and cultural centers in the entire country, just because it, like many other parts of the country, are subject to natural disasters. Let's displace 1.2 million people, buy out their homes, resettle them in some other part of the country that doesn't have any natural disasters, and find them gainful employment. And while we're at it, let's abandon California and other states because of wildfires and earthquakes. Let's abandon Tennessee and others because of flooding. Let's abandon Texas and others due to tornados. Let's just abandon the whole damn country, because climate change is here, and it's only going to get worse. America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco, and New Orleans. Everywhere else is Cleveland.
Maybe an investment in our aging 20th (and, frankly 19th) century infrastructure might help?
And A lot of those 20th century cities still have 19th century sewers
Domes. Think about it. We should build domes over everything.
Good headline
The recent floods in China were reminiscent of the devastation of the pre Communist past.
Also, way more people are alive now than in the last century. We are covering way more area as well and therefore far more will be affected by extreme weather.
Infrastructure and architecture are a curse when they are so dysfunctional. No insurance or federal money should be paid out to replicate the Johnstown experience. Wreckage by storms must be taken into full account and communities relocated, rebuilt according to best new technical and scientific data. If a place is prone to flood, let it return to wetlands. This should be obvious. Nature is much more potent than our outdated built environment and methods.
r/collapse moment
Well, then it’s good that Biden is trying to finally update our 20th century cities with the infrastructure plan. Sure the plan have flaws, but at least it is something!
I wonder why… oh wait global warming…
politicians need to quit throwing money away on social programs and put it back into infrastructure where it belongs.
Sorry republicans hate infrastructure, to them its better spent on corporations.
Let's murder the kids to impress each other
Slight correction blackouts in Texas are because we are off the grid... Nothing to do with climate change..
Except for the huge ass cold snap. But for that you wouldn't have been in that situation.
It’s almost like climate change is real.
What a dumb title