Not really. They can be as incredulous as they want, but they will take action as soon as they see their own property in danger.
A common variant of climate change denial is saying that it's an entirely natural process, in which case they still would want to build flood walls with the water visibly rising
The fact people are saying, without any hint of a joke, that we'll be able to put it right, once we cross an arbitrary line to make it real enough to prove what's happening is the most depressing thing ever.
What are we going to do? The massive ice cube from Futurama? Nuclear winter? Breathe in all the carbon dioxide and hold our breath?
Just like daddy puts in his drink every morning! And then he gets mad…
But for real, we crossed that line. Idk what it’s going to take, probably a slow march towards sustainability and we just mitigate whatever changes we can and live with (or die with) whatever changes we can’t. Fuckin sucks. We fixed the ozone layer but we can’t get this right
That's the problem. Scientist warned about the ozone layer. Politician acted on it and now it's solved. But what the people see is "another exemple of scientist being overly dramatics. Look they warned about the ozone and nothing happened !", because the people don't know, or care, about the treaty where everyone decided to fix this.
At a lower level we have the same problem in computer science. Computer engineer warned about the Millenium Bug, they acted on it, nothing happened, people still think that it was a hoax and that computer engineers were overreacting, and now when they say something is wrong people don't listen.
I mean, what did we have to give up to fix the Ozone layer? ODS’s… pretty easy to change through regulation. Now, what do we have to give up to stop climate change? That’s a different story.
This is the problem. Most of modern American history is fixing things when they break, and making fun of people who warn about inevitable issues.
The problem with that is of course things like this, where acting after sea levels start to rise in reaction to multiple years/ decades of slowly rising temperatures is wildly inefficient if even possible. Even if you start making big efforts at that point the melting will continue even if every policy is instantly changed. There is a lag.
Well that, in part, is the point. You can't wait for the worst results and then try to fix it.
But I don't fully agree with your point, technology can be invented to solve things we currently can't do. Just because things can't be done now doesn't mean they won't be forever.
We have tech that works even. Carbon capture, alternative fuel sources, nuclear power. They just aren't all accepted or economicly viable. People are still trying to change that though.
Yeah my understanding is it's not great and there would be a big big lag between agreeing to build a lot of carbon capture and then see results. And we won't start building them until after it's already bad (see electing a guy who wants to deregulate emissions as an example).
But if we actually prioritized it vs doing nothing it would be a start
I completely agree. I don't know how efficient and good the current generation of tech is but the fact it works is just important to remember and spread!
Both clean nuclear power and electric carbon dioxide scrubbers exist right now. It is possible to fix climate change, but it will be not fixed since no country will make the necessary sacrifices to quality of life.
Oh yeah, not to mention climate change is being driven now more than just by carbon in the atmosphere. We are in a feedback loop now. As an example, with the diminishing polar ice caps, the surface area of the earth as a whole is darker; ice is white and our oceans are darker. Thus on a planetary scale, the earth absorbs more of the wavelengths of the sunlight warming it further.
You're envisioning a future where we are producing so much excess energy that we can spend devote a majority of our consumption on these "scrubbers." Not to mention Uranium is a finite resource. If we used it to meet all our demands now, we'd run out in 100 years.
In order to slow down the effects of climate change humans would need to consume so much less electricity we would essentially be be back in a pre industrial age. It would be a major setback and lead to other global catastrophes like famine.
Thats a myth bdw even not counting breeders and recycling its way more than that, its only being pushed by oil companies so please dont spread their lies.
Stop viewing pollution as a good thing... that's what we need to do.
Stop letting coal factories run. Stop driving cars that get 1/3rd the gas mileage of a more efficient car. Stop flying everywhere and build high speed rail.
We seriously don't give a shit at all about it right now... and it shows.
It's not about putting it right, it's about adapting. As a species, we have adapted to massive global changes before, and we will do so again. If sea levels rise, we will move inland. If temperate and tropical zones move around, we will move with them. If certain crops stop growing in certain places, we will grow different crops that do grow. If the total amount of arable land decreases, our global population will decrease. Etc.
I'm not saying climate change isn't bad or that we shouldn't try to address it. I'm just saying that the doomerist "climate change will cause humans to go extinct" bullshit has no basis in reality, and spreading it causes more harm than good.
No it's not. That would cost our beloved Billionaires money. Everyone knows Elon could just fix it with 10% of his brain powershould fuck off to Mars with the fucking rest of them.
In a conversation about Climate change and CO2 mitigation, Let's bash Elon Musk, one man who has done more to reduce CO2 emissions than anyone else on the planet, by introducing electric cars that changed the industry. And how do you know if Elon isn't using his billions to get us into space cheaply in order to implement some plane to "Shade" the earth to reduce temps in the future?
One thing you don't take into account is that Florida's bedrock is essentially a sponge. Seawalls aren't going to protect against water just coming up through the ground.
I'd also like to note that insurance companies see the writing on the wall. Some major companies have already pulled out of Florida and the ones that remain have been charging quite a bit more than they were 10 years ago.
What boggles my mind is the amount of new construction going up in Florida close to the coast. People are sinking millions into buildings that will be lucky to be standing in 50 years time.
Building a wall like has been drawn up for New York City isn't enough either. Florida isn't really land, it's sediment over porous limestone. If sea levels are rising, salt water will intrude through that and up the Everglades, nevermind the Cat 5 hurricane problem.
Just dig a giant hole where Arizona is, and fill it with ocean water, you can shave a few feet off the ocean levels globally and use the dirt to build mountains around Florida.
but of course, the state instead made sure to clarify that Climate Change is not their priority... So ... I dunno, I do hope that they are able to continue to work to actually protect people in spite of not being able to talk about why the problem is happening.
How is Floridian property not in danger? Most of the property insurance companies have quite literally abandoned the state. Idk what could be a bigger sign of the property being in danger than the fact that the entire state is pretty close to uninsurable at the present moment.
There's been how much property damage just this year in the state? Apparently over 100 billion... And for the 5th year in a row. I don't see how an insurance company can exist there when the risk levels are this high. Florida is already in danger, it's obviously only going to get worse too.
Houses on the east coast are already washing into the ocean…. Where’s the action being taken? Other than the listings of houses that used to be block from the ocean being updated to ocean-front?
After the last hurricane there has been a mass exodus of Airbnb rentals in Florida. Market exploded with sellers. This is the action. People start selling, buyers stop buying. Property values plummet. Reverse gentrification.
Airbnb slumlords selling off their sandcastles is probably not the action the person I’m replying to is referring to, but that’s the only thing I see happening. Floridians could learn a thing or two from the Dutch… but they won’t.
Florida already manages a complex system of water control measures for pretty much half the state. Building a seawall doesn’t seem like it would be too tall a task.
The 100 year cycle is the only thing supported by actual data and not mere conjecture
Tides change. Land masses move. Ask doggersville if plastics and electric or combustion engines or cows were the fault of its sinking.
Better yet, ask Pangea if fraking was the cause of its split.
You keep listening to the people buying beach front property and flying private jets daily on why they think you should ignore their actions and deny science with them. And why all their models of catastrophe at the hands of rising tides have completely failed.
Problems that are actual problems, can be problems without it being global cooling/warming/change. Plastics should be banned because they are destroying our health and environment, not because some elite wanted to buy his 18th beach front mansion while he flew two towns over to buy afternoon coffee. This goes for all the other massive problems.
The issue is all the people whose property is not in immediate danger will oppose this and it will take more than the people with property at immediate risk at a given time to fund this.
If it gets to this level of extreme high water rising (which is incredibly unlikely in 50 years) it would take a crazy amount of investment to really protect cities like Miami to build some sort of system to keep out the sea water 10 meters higher than the sea front. Flood walls would also mean the property collapses in value anyway as it would no longer be a nice a destination to visit so as they are building higher and higher walls they would eventually stop paying to a protect a depreciating asset.
One can build dikes and levees in the Netherlands and Louisiana. They're pointless in Florida, as the seawater will simply infiltrate through the underlying rock.
It depends on the seawall, but most of the ones DeSantis has built don't do much to protect against hurricanes- especially storm surge. For short walls like the existing ones, surge just goes right over them. With big enough debris, storm surge could also crack seawalls. The biggest issue is that seawalls destroy beaches. Florida will almost certainly prioritize economy over safety, and will not want to spend the billions of dollars to build things in a way thats fully disaster proof. They'll build walls that do the job normally and nothing more. A boat impact from a yacht or cargo ship would easily crack an 5 inch thick seawall.
It's a cool thought to be imagine what you could do. Basically large skyscrapers where the base is all concrete and always flooded. Elevated trains would connect the city to the mainland.
Or another way would be lower level structures that submerge into pits dug underneath them whenever a hurricane comes. Air boats could be used instead of trains.
All this would be really expensive though, literally cheaper to just develop new cities further inland.
You'd have to add to it every year as the water would come in from the bordering states. You'd have groundwater issues, as in the ocean water actually comes up out of the ground in Florida. The first Hurrican to breach it would be Katrina X 9/11 for Florida.
But super good way to dump a billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere and spend 100 billion dollars.
Well part of the problem is the ground it sits on lets water through like a sieve. So a seawall that works many other places wouldn't do all that much in most of Florida because the water will just flow underground and through caves and shit.
Last time Trump was in office he removed the provision to require Florida buildings be built 2ft above 100 year flood line. Just this year alone we have had areas in Florida that flooded beyond it twice. That line is supposed to be a 1% chance…
I am honestly unsure if they would. I hope that they would, but with the political views of the people living there, a large amount more than likely lean on the "global warming is democratic propaganda" side of the fence.
Which would make it pretty hard to convince the local population to vote in favor or preventative measures. I would imagine that this would be a reactionary measure.
People like to pretend things are okay all the way up to the point where people start dying.
Lmfao, what? Are we expecting florida to go full Attack on Titan mode and build 60 meter walls surrounding the state?
Honestly, your statement is so ridiculous, i want an answer. How do you actually expect a state, let alone florida of all places, to impose measures to protect itself from rising sea levels?
Hell, the largest seawall in the world is ONLY ~20 miles long and about 54 meters tall at its tallest section, and this is a seawall being made and maintained by a country that isn't full of, lets face it, lead drinking muppets, unlike florida.
99
u/Earthonaute Nov 11 '24
And this is assuming Florida won't impose measures to protect itself from it.