16
submitted 3 days ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

If these people want to pay for their own sea walls to protect their homes, fine; but taxpayers shouldn’t be subsidizing the ultra rich to protect their properties. Buying ocean front property in this day and age is a big risk.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 days ago

The problem us that private seawalls have the effect of destroying public beaches, which is why California restricts them.

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I see, there are different ways to do them. In some ways, the public will need to fund some seawall construction to protect roads and reduce erosion overall. Highway 1 in CA is a good example. But, there are also plenty of examples of people who built homes dangerously close to the ocean and when a big storm rolls in, they get wrecked.

[-] whithom@discuss.online 7 points 2 days ago

We do not need to be spending money to preserve houses on a beach and destroying the environment with a sea wall.

[-] Donk@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 days ago

"a state appeals court has indicated it will uphold rules limiting the construction of sea walls along the coast." oh thank fuck

[-] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Jeepers shouldn't they be paying to protect water supplies from increased salinity over sea walls to protect against property damage?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

The court decision is indeed one to limit the use of seawalls to protect against property damage. There are limited cases where they'll still be used, but it's not going to be too widespread in California as a result.

[-] Oestradiolo 3 points 2 days ago

Stop subsidizing losses. No paying for seawalls unless we own the land.

this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)

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

5329 readers
381 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS