this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
187 points (97.9% liked)

Futurology

1886 readers
38 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Rich and famous people are being affected, the time has come to do something about it

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

Shit I'll take it at this point.

But billionaires weren't really affected, so I still doubt it.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

There's 2 missing adaptation policies.

  1. Deforestation around homes replaced with solar. Maybe fruit bushes under solar panels to help against mudslides. Rebuilding homes with metal roofs and solar to make them fireproof. Deforesting is easier insurance management than retrofitting homes.

  2. Utilities owning CA government to stop home and community solar has to stop. Home+community solar replacing forests is an alternative to fire risks from transmission lines, and charging rate payers instead of shareholders whenever they cause a fire.

Solar not only provides economic value instead of just costs, it helps with both long term path to 3C, and insurance/government burden to property survivability. Solar energy is more decarbonization than trees.

No, no, didn't you hear? It's all one guy's fault. Nobody knows how or why, but Trump would never lie. It's all Newsom's fault.

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Climate realism without questioning the "sanctity" of the free market that is the basis of the capitalist production system that is debunking nature for profits is useless. We must absorb the abundance of capitalist production but overcome it as an economic model, to a model in which man is at the center and not profit. Without the overcoming of Capitalism, everything is mere words in the wind

It’s not a free market. There are way too many subsidies for that!

[–] tehciolo@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

The most tractable and obvious way to reduce California wildfire risk in the future is not to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which are a tiny and dwindling component of future global emissions this century.

"realism"

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

I think the fires show the need for water in LA

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They just need to not allow any insurance cancelations on policies paid up and only rebuild not fire resistant homes, cement, metal roofs are a most, metal shutters on all windows.

[–] argiope@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The reason why a lot of California homes are built with lumber is that more fire resistant materials like bricks and cement collapse during earthquakes.

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Other earthquake regions in the world build their houses with concrete and cement as well. It‘s possible.

However, structures that are resistant against fire and earthquake might be costly.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

There's not a single thread about this fire where some Californians have excuses for why they simply can't have their entire state burn to a crisp year after year. They really on that brainwash shit

[–] Shortstack@reddthat.com 0 points 2 days ago

Good thing California is flush with money

And cap insurance profits & executive compensation instead of premiums. A cap on premiums makes insurance non-viable even for a non-profit if the risk is too high, while a cap in profits lets it be valued appropriately. The cap on executive compensation is needed because without that they'd raise premiums excessively & pay themselves the extra instead of accumulating that as company profit for their stock price.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

People need to start having realistic conversations why they are building homes in places prone to natural disasters climate change or not.

Why is there a need for people I live in beach condos that require all that extra maintenance and are hurricane path?

Why build them near areas know for wild fires?

They over build these dangerous areas and now being checked by nature. There is a probably a reason why these areas were not settled that's much until modern tech allowed people to brute force into them.

[–] Shortstack@reddthat.com 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You can still build in wildfire zones as long as you don't clad your house in tinder. Which I'm guessing is the bulk of the homes that burned. Roofs in particular are the major source of catching embers because it's all flammable material. Make every house have metal roofs and fire resistant siding and this level of destruction is far less likely

[–] yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why metal?

Just use clay, it doesn't conduct heat as easily and makes for great isolation:

Plus it should be far quieter when it rains/hails.

[–] Shortstack@reddthat.com 3 points 1 day ago

Metal, clay, concrete, whatever. As long as it isn't the default combustible shingles made of an oil by-product.

Asphalt shingles account for most residential roofing demand with 81% of the overall market in 2023, according to a new report by The Freedonia Group.

Any fire prone area that puts petroleum based anything on 80% of its buildings roofs is flirting with devastation like this. Hopefully we can learn something out the other side and mandate noncombustible roofing from here on out.