this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
30 points (100.0% liked)

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

5239 readers
436 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bye@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not sure I understand how that’s a different paradigm from earthquake preparedness, like to be ready for an earthquake you have to build and maintain your structure in a certain way. That guy in your example failed the “maintain” part of that, seems like it should be treated the same.

Also no shit you shouldn’t pile flammable material next to your house in a fire zone, seems pretty intuitive. Plus all that guy needs to do to get covered again is to move the debris. Seems like a case of being intentionally obtuse to prove some individualist point, hilariously and ironically undermined since he’s seeking the collectivist protection of insurance in the first place.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its different in that how well risky my neighbor down the block is for an earthquake does not impact my earthquake risk.

Fire is fundamentally different than flood or earthquake as a peril because what people around you do to mitigate or prepare fundamentally impacts your risk.

If my neighbor has put their house up on stilts to mitigate for flooding, this doesn't change my flood risk. If my neighbor has managed their property in a way that reduces their fire risk, it also reduces my fire risk (and of course if they fail to do so, the opposite is true as well).

[–] Bye@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Aha gotcha great point.

It’s kind of like how car insurance varies based on where you live, because your neighbors may have more expensive cars and they don’t want to pay for when you crash into those.

Then maybe fire preparedness isn’t something “the market” can handle, and we just need realistic enforcement of construction and maintenance rules.