this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
113 points (100.0% liked)

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

151 readers
22 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
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Not sure what more they could have done. A drought during rainy season, a quick response to clear dry vegetation/trees is clearing vegetation that could rebound if it rains soon.

From climate statistics of 2024, record monthly rainfalls over 24 hours were 52% higher than average, and record low rainfalls 38% higher than average, globally. 2023 was bad too. These stats, in a non global warming world, would drop each year as the bar is higher each year. Costs of disasters are growing exceptionally.

As bad as the current global warming impact is on just the US's sustainability from disaster/insurance spending, calls for subsidized insurance doesn't help. It just shifts burden to tax payers/debt, and like FEMA's historically cheap flood insurance, encourages rebuiliding where it is risky. Neither does "Insurance reform" that prevents victims from making successful claims (as in Florida).

We may already have reached a point where climate disasters cost more than the profit potential of oil industry. Certainly more than their tax payments. As more of the US is destroyed, remaining housing scarcity means higher insurance coverage. Autos artificially protected means higher prices and insurance costs. (oil) "energy dominance" policies is climate terrorism to ensure a worse outcome.

One simple "helpfulness" in rebuilding is metal roofs that last 50 years and can support solar for that long too. They are fire proof. Less forest, with utility/community solar, becomes necessary from just an insurance perspective. Also related to forest fire problem, CA electricity rates are sky high because somehow utility negligence for past fires has to be paid by state wide rate payers instead of shareholders. CA governance that is captured by utilities and insurance, fail to help CA progress and resilience.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Short term, there's really not much they could have done better. These were extreme conditions and they were bound to cause fire to a large extent in the current context of peri-urban development and forest mismanagement.

Long term, things could have been different but it would require major political and social changes in how we build cities and how we manage our wildlands. Happy to go into more detail if you are curious.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

Destroying and rebuilding homes (AFAIU, most destroyed were over 60 years old) is a tough option. Really, removing forest for solar is the best, only practical, solution. This should be global adaptation to high value forest homes/communities, because drought risk is everywhere.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 7 points 5 days ago

Surely continuing to subsidize fossil fuels will solve this.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Direct result of land mismanagement. The California State Government blames federal land management but I don't know if that is just an excuse.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

For this particular event I think the extreme weather conditions are a greater contributor than forest mismanagement, which yes, has happened for over 100 years not just in California but throughout the entire US. But both are factors.

As far as the feds vs the state... much of the forested land in CA is federal land, so ultimately I do think they have to take responsibility. On the other hand, since proper forest management hasn't been standard practice in the US since the genocide against Native Americans, there's no clear delegation of responsibility here. I'm sure the state could get federal approval to take actions in forest service land, but they generally lack the budget.

In general, CAL FIRE and the USFS both know what needs to be done in order to manage our forests better, and they are already taking these actions on a small scale. People who levy this criticism often imagine that professional government foresters are just idiots who don't understand their own field, but this is far from the case. The reality is that there's just no way these agencies can do fire prevention activities on a large enough scale to solve the problem. Again, they would need much higher budgets to focus on these things, and might need to abandon the focus on fire-fighting activities since this is where the vast majority of money goes currently. They would also need the ability to do controlled burns without worrying excessively about the consequences like they do now.

Overall I don't think there is really a realistic path to better forest management in the US unless there are some major political and cultural changes. I think empowering individuals to do controlled burns without a need for major oversight from the state or feds would be one change. Bringing back large herbivores to control tree density might also help without a need to huge amounts of human labor but this is far more speculative.

[–] palarith@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Even in Australia we had to have a couple of major bushfires before we got serious about management

Even now knobs still complain when backburning is to be done

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Do you feel the problem has been significantly addressed in Australia? Here there is a lot of talk about controlled burns but there is also a lot of public and bureaucratic resistance such that hardly any gets done compared to the scale of our landscapes.

One significant obstacle is rules around clean air. This is a difficult topic because for geographical and climatological reasons, California is very vulnerable to poor air quality, and pollution here kills thousands of people annually. So I'm not exactly enthused about loosening rules around air quality when the problem is already so dire, but on the other hand, much of that fire will happen one way or the other, so maybe it's better that it happens in a controlled manner.

Here's an article that goes over some of the hurdles here in California: https://www.newsweek.com/controlled-burns-california-forest-management-los-angeles-fires-2012492

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 3 points 4 days ago

America in one video

[–] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago

How my intestines feel after I eat McDonald's

Good to see McD’s expanding their business to serve the afterlife. Should have known hell would be a wind-whipped, fiery capitalist wasteland.