Skip Navigation

Futurology @futurology.today

voidx @futurology.today

3mo ago

The L.A. Fires Show the Need for Climate Realism

The L.A. Fires Show the Need for Climate Realism

56 comments

Unless it's your house that is burning down because of unusually hot dry weather ... no one really cares or wants to admit that it has anything to do with climate change.
- This is a narrative created by the incumbent Fossil Fuel industry.
  In reality, everyone is either directly or indirectly affected by the fires and everyone benefits from reducing climate change change.
  The Renewable and related industries will be much better for the economy and capitalism.
  
  I fail to understand why they stick with fossil fuels even though renewable deployments are cheaper than ever. Although there's misinformation and politics, they should look at long term profits..

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

Rich and famous people are being affected, the time has come to do something about it
- Shit I'll take it at this point.
  But billionaires weren't really affected, so I still doubt it.

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
- 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.

There's 2 missing adaptation policies.
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.
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.

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.
- 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
  
  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.

I think the fires show the need for water in LA

Except these fires weren’t due to climate change…
- There was too little rain this year which made the fires much worse.
  
  Blaming it on climate change seems like a cop-out for the egregious failure and oversight by the local/state government.
- It was as bad as it was because of climate change, just like with all fires now. The setting itself has simply changed too much for it not to be the case.
  If this is good faith, you gotta update your understanding, man.
  
  Unfortunately, that’s not true. People are lacking any understanding of fires and also the historicity of large-scale, calamitous fires in the past, pre-industrial revolution and before any significant human impact to climate. These past fires exhibited the same characteristics as seen with the LA firestorm. Climate change did not exacerbate the fires seen here. To suggest so not only ignores a rational understanding of how large-scale fires can literally create their own weather in addition to incorrectly placing the blame on an unforeseen force rather than the cause of direct human activity (physically starting a fire) and gross governmental negligence. Climate change caused the defunding, which lead to no water for hydrants? People out here no longer even using their brains for critical thinking anymore (ノ°益°)ノ

56 comments