You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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…
If you depend on oil companies for “rationality”:
That cheapest new energy is solar then wind gives the oil company a negative impact on its existing assets. Suppressing renewables through bribery/politics keeps consumers addicted to their product, and keeps prices high. Nationalizing oil companies, without compensation for shareholders, is both appropriate punishment, and only way to stop their lobbying corrupting democracy.
Sunk cost fallacy. They have already invested so much in fossil fuel infrastructure that they feel that if they give up now, they would have wasted all their money.
The fact that that the money is wasted whether they pivot to renewables or not something they consider. In fact, if they can lever their existing infrastructure they can be much more competitive than any new renewable energy provider.
Many fossil fuel companies, especially ones involved in the middle east petrostates gain huge oil rent from selling oil.
Basically, the price of oil is close to the price of producing it in the “marginal” fields (the least productive fields), while some oil fields are many times more productive than the marginal fields. The owners of the hyper productive fields gain huge amounts of revenue from selling oil (this is called “differential rent” in economics). And this profit comes from owning the oil fields themselves.
If the demand for oil were to fall, its price would fall quite rapidly, as oil producers would abandon low productivity marginal fields. This would torpedo the oil rents of the petro states
This rent effect exists for lots of goods, but it is more pronounced in oil because oil is a scarce natural resource that is spread very unevenly.
On the political side of things, the oil rent of the big producers is protected by the US government, because the oil rent of the big producers is what holds up the value of the USD.
Unfortunately, I have to second this statement. I think humans just can’t anticipate well. In combination with money, a rare event will be neglected or ignored. Think of IT security or pandemic countermeasures for example.
I live in Germany. Europes devil is water. Lots of water from the sky. Rain the volume of an entire year within 2-3 days.
In 2021, in a hilly area many small villages were washed away from a used to be small tiny river. Did people learn? No.
Since that event, we had several more heavy rain events in Europe that either flushed town or drowned entire areas. Last one this summer in Spain Castillia.
Do people learn? No, still the right-wing parties in Germany are on upswings. And so the Governments.
Tldr. Most people are stupid
Kremlin propaganda (in various ways, sometimes in free natural gaz) isn’t to be forgotten.
I think the fires show the need for water in LA
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!
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”
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Except these fires weren’t due to climate change…
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
100 mph winds and such dry brush during the rainy season is not normal.
This fire happening should come as no surprise, but the speed, scale, and timing of this was from a set of freak weather conditions.
Rainfall is becoming more sporadic and heavier when it comes, weather systems are going far from areas they normally reach - last year had dozens of combinations of record setting freak conditions, and the unprecedented fires, floods, and winds to go with it.
It’s becoming constant - somewhere in the world is experiencing conditions they never expected to face at any given time… The crazy winds are what made this fire what it is instead of what they were due for
Wow. You are mind-blowingly ignorant.
Arrogant people are typically also ignorant.
Still can’t discredit me with facts, simply name-calling. Classic.
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.
100mph winds and drought are not that easy to fight/control. Budget decisions look bad in retrospect, but the budget required to handle this would not have been approved/popular.
Sure snowflake, 90mph wind gusts after months of drought conditions is the government’s fault. It’s not like the entire western US and Canada have seen increasing red flag conditions for years which are only getting worse.
See my other comments. You evidently lack any knowledge about fires. Understand how firestorms work before commenting like an ignoramous. Otherwise, detail for me how climate change caused the “90mph winds”, which aren’t anything unique here.
Blaming it on local/state government seems like a cop-out for the egregious failure and oversight by world governments and the fossil fuel industry.
None of that contributed to these fires. They were started by people, regardless of climate change. It is disingenuous to appropriate climate change as the culprit to this and dismiss any responsibility from the leaders of California.
The problem with drought and high winds is that a spark grows into this. There was some 2023 Canada wildfire arson to prove “climate change a hoax”, but it’s the rapid spread that is global warming related, not that sparks are new.
No it isn’t. Climate change has changed the predicability and severity of weather. It’s established fact. They had a ton of rain months ago, which cause a ton of plants to grow, then, a drought which dried that extra vegetation up. Along with that, they’re receiving 100mph winds.
To say that is normal there is being disingenuous.
You have no idea wtf you’re talking about. Look up pyroconvective effects of large fires. Climate change has nothing to do with the extreme winds.
I don’t need to, I can rely on people that have dedicated their entire lives to studying it, and they agree with each other.
Also, read the article.
It’s ok to be wrong. Being wrong is actually really handy - you get to learn something. I understand it’s hard to be vulnerable and admit you are wrong but it does show a lot of character.
I’d urge you to find a way to do that. You will be the better for it.
100% agree. Ca leadership fucked up big time.
Ca leadership fucked up big time.
Enlighten us. Precisely how?
Why did the fire hydrants not have water? Why was funding for the fire dept cut, if climate change was so super duper known to cause such a catastrophe. Shouldn’t it have been a major priority? Or, maybe they are culpable to some negligence as mentioned.
Why did the fire hydrants not have water?
How about instead of slavishly repeating Faux News talking points you employ some logic. You can start by doing the math.
A class C fire hydrant that is common in residential areas delivers less than 500 GPM. This is adequate to fight the fire at one house at a time, maybe two. When it’s opened there is an instant drop in pressure in the entire water line for that area because the pipes are only so big - usually 6-12" or so up to 16" for very large subdivisions. So assuming a 12-16" pipe you are looking at less than 5000 GPM at the water main. Even if you had fire hydrants appropriately spaced that would at most get you 10-20 houses worth of water capacity. This is further degraded by (a) the use of garden hoses by residents; (b) power failures at lift stations; © the fact that water pressure is dropping across the entire system.
In short, municipal water systems are not designed to fight wildfires of this magnitude and the amount of investment in infrastructure to make that a possibility is staggering. You employ a logical fallacy here - that if climate change were a priority investment would be greater. First, it has been greater. CalFire’s budget has doubled in less than a decade and there have been millions of dollars in investments. Secondly, it doesn’t follow that because a disaster occurred investment wasn’t made OR that because a disaster occurred the need for greater investment wasn’t recognized.
If you want to lay some blame - and it seems like you are that kind of person, you can start with society’s use of fossil fuels and from there move on to things like the homeowner’s responsibilities to create defensible space. Pull up a satellite photo of, say, Malibu or Pacific Palisades and you will instantly see that that is a rarity, never mind the California Fire code that requires it.
You’ve demonstrated that are you are fundamentally ignorant of even the most basic aspects of fighting wildfires. I would encourage you to exercise a little more humility in learning about these things and a little less misplaced arrogance.
Nice one assuming I follow FoxNews, simply because what I’m saying is “wrongspeak” to the hivemind narrative. Except, it isn’t fictional and I read it on Snopes, here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/palisades-fire-hydrants-ran-out-of-water/
You’re also fixating on one, minute detail I’ve mentioned and ignoring the other facts I’ve stated around large-scale fires. Understanding how the effects of firestorms occur is not the result of climate change is my primary argument.
