this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
118 points (96.8% liked)

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

5447 readers
652 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
118
Opinion | Is America Just Going to Abandon Its Towns Falling Into the Ocean? (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

FEMA doesn’t compensate lost land, and shouldn’t. Towns and cities who want to remain in environmentally unstable places are gonna have to figure that out.

States, towns, and cities could probably use eminent domain to take land that is going to flood too often. That way the owners would get some value and have to move. The problem is that then the rest of us are paying for land that’s going to vanish, and it’s a harder sell than paying for a reservoir.

[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

FEMA doesn't do that? I def agree they shouldn't, but I thought that was one of the things they did.

The eminent domain bit feels like its probably too big for anything smaller than a large city to handle, so seems like states handling that is a good move. Don't suppose you know of any states with any active lines of effort in that direction?

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

FEMA is only for managing the emergency (usually natural disasters, but it’s also for man made ones like damn breaks or things like the train derailment in Ohio a few years back).

The damage is supposed to be covered by insurance, which is largely private except in places like Florida where most private insurers have left because it’s not ~~wildly profitable~~ viable, and only a public insurer exists.

I don’t know of any states working on this, but MA, Virginia, and North Carolina all have capes and peninsulas full or residents and homes that are at great danger in the future (if not already. Florida is obvious too, but they are actively doing the opposite by incentivizing (and legislating) people to ignore climate change.