5 ms·

Not to diminish the fact that this is happening, nor that humans are at least a principal cause of it, but does anyone think, at least in the US, that the costs

Not to diminish the fact that this is happening, nor that humans are at least a principal cause of it, but does anyone think, at least in the US, that the costs to mitigate sea-level rise would not be shared across the US, at least in those places with significant population? The contradiction is not lost on me, but most of the time when people are asked "should the government bail me out?" the answer seems to be yes regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum. I bring this up because the same people who would deny that this is a problem will also be amongst the people who will take a "check" from the federal and/or state government to mitigate any issues that arise from it. And it's, at least partially, that reality that keeps people from actually trying to mitigate it with their own actions. I'm not saying people consciously are sitting there saying that, but I do think it's an underlying belief. For instance, is this guy or gal (https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/florida-most-expensive-house-flood/ https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/florida-most-expen...) going to pay for the levy or whatever solution keeps the water from inundating their property without first lobbying the government to take care of it for them?

IncreasePosts 1y ago
Maybe? There's only 800 ft of ocean frontage. The problem with lobbying the government to do your bidding is you might not like the method they choose. I'm imagining you can easily afford to build about 2.5 mi of wall exactly how you want it if you spent $225 million on a home
- harmmonica 1y ago
  Oh that's an interesting point. Maybe they bought the property with the expectation that it would turn into their own private island once seal level rises enough to force them to build a wall. I'm not sure if I'm even being sarcastic with that comment given the sums of money we're talking about.
- adrr 1y ago
  They do beach replenishment to build up the beach to give more buffer. Spend lots of money on it. Also there is the federal flood insurance program that is running up a big debt. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-spends-a-fortune-on-beach-sand-that-storms-just-wash-away https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-spends-a-...
renewiltord 1y ago
Already happened in Palos Verdes. And Houston had similarly socialization of flood plains. Probably they will wait to have a disaster and then buy out the people affected at the highest rate in the last 3 years (like in Palos Verdes)
- harmmonica 1y ago
  Good point. Was just talking about PV yesterday and the lengths they've gone to to mitigate. That said I don't think individual property owners are being directly bailed out (i.e., are being made whole on their home values by the government).
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    Did they cancel the buy-out? They effectively picked the highest prices from the last few years if I recall https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/fema-cal-oes-announce-42-million-voluntary-buyout-program-to-rancho-palos-verdes-homeowners-impacted-by-land-movement/ https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/fema-cal-oes-announc...
    - harmmonica 1y ago
      Oh man I didn't know! Thanks for pointing me to that. Edit: this is interesting because now that I've read about it it seems the gov is paying fair market value for the land. Do you know if that's for the land value only or are the improvements part of it? Seems like a decent solution actually, but it does beg the larger question: what happens when it's thousands of homes? Have to imagine Palisades and Eaton fire folks are agitating for this exact same deal. The costs, in comparison to PV, will be extreme.
      - renewiltord 1y ago
        I believe it's for the total value as on Dec 1, 2022. The document does not specify that it is for land value alone. The government is paying for the whole property not just the land. It's $42m and homes in that region are $1.5m+ so that's under 50 people. Actual details are here: https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22752/Voluntary-Property-Buyout---Guidelines-and-Application https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22752/Voluntary-Pr... Why do you think it's a decent solution? I think these things should be a home insurance concern so that we don't provide de-facto home insurance only for beachside property.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> at least in the US, that the costs to mitigate sea-level rise would not be shared across the US, at least in those places with significant population? Probably. Despite our partisan poisoning, our coastlines are split across red states and blue states. A unified coastal defence bill probably has political purchase. (Though not under MAGA/DOGE.)
mrcwinn 1y ago
That’s an oversimplification of the factions. There are large groups who don’t deny the risk, but question the cause, or simply think it’s not a viable solution to stop the economy, or not treat sick people with grid-taxing medical equipment, or deny automobiles to people who must commute to earn a living, or ban certain foods, and so on and so on. I really wish we had always been on solar and the Model T had been electric for the same cost. Unfortunately, the supply chain and economy just didn’t support that. Bummer. Let’s focus a bit less on moralizing and instead turn our attention to fixing the challenges at hand. I know someone who is very far left, and yet insists on driving a vintage car that is a lot worse for the environment than a neighbor’s F150. We’re all filled with contradictions and regrettable hypocrisies. It’s the challenge of our time. How can we live how we want to live, whatever that means individually, in a way that is sustainable and avoids a system of state rationing?
- coldpie 1y ago
  > or simply think it’s not a viable solution to stop the economy, or not treat sick people with grid-taxing medical equipment, or deny automobiles to people who must commute to earn a living, or ban certain foods, and so on and so on. At least in the US, pretty much nobody of any consequence is advocating for any of those things. > How can we live how we want to live, whatever that means individually, in a way that is sustainable and avoids a system of state rationing? It's an extremely complex problem, but for the most part what we need to do is understood. Stop burning fuel for energy by implementing renewables and nuclear, and retiring coal and NG; and switch to electric cars, trucks, and trains. Those two things alone would almost eliminate half of US carbon emissions. There's a long tail of much more difficult problems to tackle after that, but accomplishing just those two would buy a ton of time to address that long tail. That's why everyone serious is focusing on those two problems and not like, artificial meat or whatever.
- Loughla 1y ago
  I don't think we can live the way we want to live without extreme weather, disease, and/or famine killing a good share of us. The modern human way of life is simply unsustainable. The problem is that no one wants to willingly sacrifice their own wants or needs for the greater good, which makes sense. Why should I suffer for 8 billion people I don't know? The scale is just too large to comprehend as a basic human. We need to focus on fixing our local area and living as much within what it can provide as we can. It's easier to understand. It's easier to see the impacts. But it doesn't solve the problem of human caused climate change. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't see a way out of this that ends with anything but the complete and utter collapse of civilization as we know it before 2100. I believe that we will no longer possess the technology to access this comment well before that time, and we'll see a return to feudal/tribal lifestyles with a much diminished population. I just hope it happens after my bloodline has already died out, and none of my kids or grandkids will have to experience the shit show. But I have little faith of that. I think the collapse will come within my kids' lifetime, and that's very depressing.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
photonthug 1y ago
> answer seems to be yes regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum Yes, the ugly truth is that it’s hard to find people that have static or principled values on anything, and most are kind of transparently looking for ways to force things on others. A place where you can see this very clearly is issues of bodily autonomy: one side of the political spectrum wants to force the other side to get vaccinated and the other side wants to force people into unwanted child birth. These are of course very different things, but both are ultimately coercive, so it’s not about the right to choose in either case. States autonomy vs federalism, bail outs, are similar. Almost no one has any real preference for it one way or the other on principle, it just depends on how they think they might be able to use it as a cudgel and how it will increase or diminish their own bottom line.
- thrance 1y ago
  Yet more bothsideism with a ridiculous comparison. Democrats never passed a law to force anyone to get vaccinated. If you want to die of fucking TB or polio, feel free to. But know you're a dickhead for acting as a vector of cured diseases, therefore endangering vulnerable people. One side and one side only rejects the mere idea of climate change, defunded FEMA, defunded NOAA, favors the oil and coal lobbies, etc. I could go on and on and on. I do not hold the Democrats in my heart, but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous. Finally, perhaps it's time for Americans to start reasoning in positive freedoms: maybe my freedom to not die of preventable diseases or to not live in a shitty overheating world surpasses yours to not get vaccinated or drive an oversized SUV to go to Walmart and back.
  - richwater 1y ago
    > Democrats never passed a law to force anyone to get vaccinated This is revisionism at best, disinformation at worst. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1048939858/osha-biden-vaccine-mandate-employers-100-workers https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1048939858/osha-biden-vaccine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_administration_COVID-19_action_plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_administration_COVID-19_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_...
grafmax 1y ago
Concentration of wealth is a concentration of power. We should hold accountable those with the deepest pockets and the greatest influence on climate policy: the fossil fuel cartel. Calls to cut government spending by withholding relief from those on the margins of decision-making miss the forest for the trees. Justice would have those paying to destroy our future pay for the consequences of their cynicism and misanthropy.
yieldcrv 1y ago
That’s kind of my issue with partisan takes Like, they’re often not opposite, they’re just different. One group is saying “no, we don’t want the government to pay for that, in that way, or at all” and another group is saying “you aren't acknowledging this is a problem at all or are apathetic or plain evil”, which isn't a useful way to gain friends and influence people but the stances generally aren't opposite about the existence of the problem, but the sides do get entrenched until the party line becomes denial instead of merely about the financing

IncreasePosts 1y ago

Maybe? There's only 800 ft of ocean frontage. The problem with lobbying the government to do your bidding is you might not like the method they choose. I'm imagining you can easily afford to build about 2.5 mi of wall exactly how you want it if you spent $225 million on a home

harmmonica 1y ago
Oh that's an interesting point. Maybe they bought the property with the expectation that it would turn into their own private island once seal level rises enough to force them to build a wall. I'm not sure if I'm even being sarcastic with that comment given the sums of money we're talking about.
adrr 1y ago
They do beach replenishment to build up the beach to give more buffer. Spend lots of money on it. Also there is the federal flood insurance program that is running up a big debt. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-spends-a-fortune-on-beach-sand-that-storms-just-wash-away https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-spends-a-...

renewiltord 1y ago

Already happened in Palos Verdes. And Houston had similarly socialization of flood plains. Probably they will wait to have a disaster and then buy out the people affected at the highest rate in the last 3 years (like in Palos Verdes)

harmmonica 1y ago
Good point. Was just talking about PV yesterday and the lengths they've gone to to mitigate. That said I don't think individual property owners are being directly bailed out (i.e., are being made whole on their home values by the government).
- renewiltord 1y ago
  Did they cancel the buy-out? They effectively picked the highest prices from the last few years if I recall https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/fema-cal-oes-announce-42-million-voluntary-buyout-program-to-rancho-palos-verdes-homeowners-impacted-by-land-movement/ https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/fema-cal-oes-announc...
  - harmmonica 1y ago
    Oh man I didn't know! Thanks for pointing me to that. Edit: this is interesting because now that I've read about it it seems the gov is paying fair market value for the land. Do you know if that's for the land value only or are the improvements part of it? Seems like a decent solution actually, but it does beg the larger question: what happens when it's thousands of homes? Have to imagine Palisades and Eaton fire folks are agitating for this exact same deal. The costs, in comparison to PV, will be extreme.
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      I believe it's for the total value as on Dec 1, 2022. The document does not specify that it is for land value alone. The government is paying for the whole property not just the land. It's $42m and homes in that region are $1.5m+ so that's under 50 people. Actual details are here: https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22752/Voluntary-Property-Buyout---Guidelines-and-Application https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/22752/Voluntary-Pr... Why do you think it's a decent solution? I think these things should be a home insurance concern so that we don't provide de-facto home insurance only for beachside property.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> at least in the US, that the costs to mitigate sea-level rise would not be shared across the US, at least in those places with significant population? Probably. Despite our partisan poisoning, our coastlines are split across red states and blue states. A unified coastal defence bill probably has political purchase. (Though not under MAGA/DOGE.)

mrcwinn 1y ago

That’s an oversimplification of the factions. There are large groups who don’t deny the risk, but question the cause, or simply think it’s not a viable solution to stop the economy, or not treat sick people with grid-taxing medical equipment, or deny automobiles to people who must commute to earn a living, or ban certain foods, and so on and so on. I really wish we had always been on solar and the Model T had been electric for the same cost. Unfortunately, the supply chain and economy just didn’t support that. Bummer. Let’s focus a bit less on moralizing and instead turn our attention to fixing the challenges at hand. I know someone who is very far left, and yet insists on driving a vintage car that is a lot worse for the environment than a neighbor’s F150. We’re all filled with contradictions and regrettable hypocrisies. It’s the challenge of our time. How can we live how we want to live, whatever that means individually, in a way that is sustainable and avoids a system of state rationing?

coldpie 1y ago
> or simply think it’s not a viable solution to stop the economy, or not treat sick people with grid-taxing medical equipment, or deny automobiles to people who must commute to earn a living, or ban certain foods, and so on and so on. At least in the US, pretty much nobody of any consequence is advocating for any of those things. > How can we live how we want to live, whatever that means individually, in a way that is sustainable and avoids a system of state rationing? It's an extremely complex problem, but for the most part what we need to do is understood. Stop burning fuel for energy by implementing renewables and nuclear, and retiring coal and NG; and switch to electric cars, trucks, and trains. Those two things alone would almost eliminate half of US carbon emissions. There's a long tail of much more difficult problems to tackle after that, but accomplishing just those two would buy a ton of time to address that long tail. That's why everyone serious is focusing on those two problems and not like, artificial meat or whatever.
Loughla 1y ago
I don't think we can live the way we want to live without extreme weather, disease, and/or famine killing a good share of us. The modern human way of life is simply unsustainable. The problem is that no one wants to willingly sacrifice their own wants or needs for the greater good, which makes sense. Why should I suffer for 8 billion people I don't know? The scale is just too large to comprehend as a basic human. We need to focus on fixing our local area and living as much within what it can provide as we can. It's easier to understand. It's easier to see the impacts. But it doesn't solve the problem of human caused climate change. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I don't see a way out of this that ends with anything but the complete and utter collapse of civilization as we know it before 2100. I believe that we will no longer possess the technology to access this comment well before that time, and we'll see a return to feudal/tribal lifestyles with a much diminished population. I just hope it happens after my bloodline has already died out, and none of my kids or grandkids will have to experience the shit show. But I have little faith of that. I think the collapse will come within my kids' lifetime, and that's very depressing.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

photonthug 1y ago

> answer seems to be yes regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum Yes, the ugly truth is that it’s hard to find people that have static or principled values on anything, and most are kind of transparently looking for ways to force things on others. A place where you can see this very clearly is issues of bodily autonomy: one side of the political spectrum wants to force the other side to get vaccinated and the other side wants to force people into unwanted child birth. These are of course very different things, but both are ultimately coercive, so it’s not about the right to choose in either case. States autonomy vs federalism, bail outs, are similar. Almost no one has any real preference for it one way or the other on principle, it just depends on how they think they might be able to use it as a cudgel and how it will increase or diminish their own bottom line.

thrance 1y ago
Yet more bothsideism with a ridiculous comparison. Democrats never passed a law to force anyone to get vaccinated. If you want to die of fucking TB or polio, feel free to. But know you're a dickhead for acting as a vector of cured diseases, therefore endangering vulnerable people. One side and one side only rejects the mere idea of climate change, defunded FEMA, defunded NOAA, favors the oil and coal lobbies, etc. I could go on and on and on. I do not hold the Democrats in my heart, but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous. Finally, perhaps it's time for Americans to start reasoning in positive freedoms: maybe my freedom to not die of preventable diseases or to not live in a shitty overheating world surpasses yours to not get vaccinated or drive an oversized SUV to go to Walmart and back.
- richwater 1y ago
  > Democrats never passed a law to force anyone to get vaccinated This is revisionism at best, disinformation at worst. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1048939858/osha-biden-vaccine-mandate-employers-100-workers https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1048939858/osha-biden-vaccine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_administration_COVID-19_action_plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biden_administration_COVID-19_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_mandates_...

grafmax 1y ago

Concentration of wealth is a concentration of power. We should hold accountable those with the deepest pockets and the greatest influence on climate policy: the fossil fuel cartel. Calls to cut government spending by withholding relief from those on the margins of decision-making miss the forest for the trees. Justice would have those paying to destroy our future pay for the consequences of their cynicism and misanthropy.

yieldcrv 1y ago

That’s kind of my issue with partisan takes Like, they’re often not opposite, they’re just different. One group is saying “no, we don’t want the government to pay for that, in that way, or at all” and another group is saying “you aren't acknowledging this is a problem at all or are apathetic or plain evil”, which isn't a useful way to gain friends and influence people but the stances generally aren't opposite about the existence of the problem, but the sides do get entrenched until the party line becomes denial instead of merely about the financing