There’s a 10-20 year lag between emissions and temperature. The temperature increase is basically permanent, and will have some immediate impacts and some slower impacts. I think you wanted to make some conclusions about that, but lost yourself in a rant.
In CA, agriculture uses about 4x as much water as urban areas. Some of those ag products are exported.
I agree with you that the federal gov’t shouldn’t pay people to move. I also think that, if Californians want to keep living there, they may have options that involve less agriculture.
Yep. The real question is "What responsibility does the federal gov’t have for any “localized” environmental disaster?
I’m sure I’ve read stories about entire, very small, towns moving out of a flood plain to higher ground. With federal support. They tend to fly under the radar because the total spent subsidizing flood insurance isn’t that large as a percent of the federal budget.
The letters to the editors and opinion pieces on the "Desert Sun"from the fucking idiots choosing to live in the goddamn desert (Palm Springs).
Current headline:
" Deadly Kentucky floods show the merits of sending Midwest water to the West"
I do have sympathy for those in areas that didn’t make the choice to live there, but happen to live in drought stricken areas.
Doesn’t take away from the stupidity of these articles and letters tobthe editors.
The people will move themselves.
The indigenous people in the region that have had their water stolen by all this shit definitely deserve more than just sympathy, imo.
1 Like
I made the conclusion that emissions reductions won’t impact the “climate crisis” in the short or medium term and pointed out that politicians like Kamala Harris seem to admit this:
Extreme weather will only get worse, and the climate crisis will only accelerate.
Then, I ranted about how politicians aren’t doing anything to actually protect us from the climate crisis, despite their constant fear mongering about it. I suggested one potential reason why, which I think is charitable.
Given there’s nothing in it that would even suggest the federal government would be paying for anything I’m not really sure how you come to that conclusion. And no, “fundamental restructuring” isn’t hyperbole, it is completely unrelated. Maybe start with this statement:
We’ll figure this out via our own state governments.
IMHO you should come up with your thoughts on what to do, before involving other people.
For example you seem to be saying here that emissions are not worth tackling because of the lag, but it’s hard to say because you are trying to frame your own ideas in the words of other Kamala Harris.
I think it’s a fine line to walk with what you’re requesting. In many cases, people look for “citations” to support a claim. (CSPAN did make a claim and provided support for it.)
However, I do agree that people should do more than just point out problems or complain about the lack of solutions. This approach (which I agree that CSPAN is appearing to take) leads no where but facilitate further divisive discourse.
Sure, CSPAN raised a good point, and asked a good question. But then sort of dropped it.
Presumably his answer is the opposite of whatever Kamala Harris thinks, but it’s hard to tell.
I think I was clear that the question is mitigation vs adaptation strategies. While I point out that mitigation won’t stop the immediate threats, and I think the science is clear on that, I’m also not claiming that we shouldn’t pursue mitigation at all. It’s not binary.
Yes, I am whining that more adaptation isn’t being pursued but I was hoping to get into a discussion on what that might look like, despite our politicians’ seemingly steadfast refusal to discuss it in any meaningful way. I wonder if the apparent lack of interest in discussing it here may be related.
The thread is about whether the government should fund a specific adaptation.
1 Like
Arguably the most unrealistic option too, relocating millions of US homeowners. Imagine not pursuing adaptation but also having articles about probably its silliest and costliest implementation. To be fair, politicians do talk about relocation in the context of a billion or more climate refugees fleeing to the western world to increase their carbon footprint since, you know, that’s obviously the logical response.
I think all my points still stand, from the infuriating failure of our politicians to pursue any serious adaptation at all, to very few wanting to have a serious discussion about what adaptation could or should look like. But admittedly I could put more effort into that. I think the adaptation strategies that should be pursued are desalination and water management (and not just on residential consumers!), upgraded drainage and storm water infrastructure, decentralized energy production/distribution, adaptive carbon removal, and coastal management including flood walls.
The current literature on adaptation is almost comical to me, focusing more on things like habitat and biodiversity management than helping prevent people from being killed and/or their homes being destroyed.
Where exactly are you getting this impression? A lot of money has been thrown at mitigation strategies. Without even googling, the NY sea wall, New Orleans levee strengthening, and Sacramento levee strengthening are massive projects that fall in this category IMO.
What specific mitigation strategies are you looking to implement that you think politicians are ignoring?
3 Likes
The NY sea wall that the Army Corps proposed? Is it being pursued? I didn’t think it was. Something like this happened in Miami, where a sea wall seems much more necessary. The Corps came up with a price tag that IMO was reasonable, but Miami said no thanks. Probably it would ruin their view of the storm surge. Good on NYC if they’re actually pursuing a wall. It would be a good but small first step on a long journey.
The NY project I think is still in the feasibilty/design phase. NO is completed. I think Sacramento is in progress. These things are happening even if they aren’t reported on Newsmax.
You’re using a few projects to obfuscate from the lack of meaningful national and global adaptation strategy, like we already have for mitigation.
Perhaps you’re just missing my point but I suspect you’re being a bit disingenuous trying to prove me “wrong” with these one-off examples. I never said adaptation wasn’t being pursued at all, so you’re not actually refuting anything I said.
When we were talking about this issue with my 7th grade science class last year they often proposed this solution. So, this suggestion is literally at the 7th grade level.
3 Likes
Nitpick: there are multi-employer public pension plans.
But it sounds like those are specifically excluded from the bailout, so that’s not what the article meant. Agree with the rest of your post and the preceding one.