this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
1099 points (98.7% liked)

Microblog Memes

5467 readers
3429 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 3 days ago (4 children)

“A” town didn’t flood, there’s wreckage across the entire southeast. It’s not because people in the south are too stupid to know where to build, it’s because climate change is making hurricanes stronger further inland, resulting in century and thousand year floods happening.

[–] bashbeerbash@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

A drought in south america has caused out of control wildfires that dumped 210 megatons of CO2 in the atmosphere, this year alone.

That's just from wildfires in one continent. Now add it to all the CO2 produced in one year.

The runaway effects are becoming more evident and unfortunately people will have to finally give up on huge swaths of land or be killed. Save the planet, hang a CEO

[–] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

We should have started building sanctuary cities a decade ago. Unfortunately the wealthy in the world are choosing a Noah's Ark model for climate change because they delusionally think they will survive this. So yeah, billions will die because that's what leadership has wanted. They don't want them to move to better areas. They want "God" to kill them.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's both - yes, places are getting hit with types and scales of natural disasters they could not have anticipated, but they're also rebuilding in places that will get hit hardest when they do it again

Consider the idea of a 100 year standard - you're building to the level where it won't hold up to the storm of a lifetime. Let alone the fact that storms keep getting worse... It boggles my mind

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 2 days ago

Poor people live where they can afford to, however they can. In trailer parks, in a tent, in a log cabin, however they can. Even knowing that someplace is likely to flood again, someone will choose to live there. For someone who has a minimum wage job, no savings, and with most houses costing a significant fraction of a million dollars, they don't have the choice to live in a floating sky castle or 20,000 leagues under the sea or on a moon colony, so they'll choose to live even somewhere where life is difficult.

Agreed though that people should not pay the full asking price for such a place, as if it would not flood, that is... probably happening, but not wise at all.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And those type of floods will only increase in frequency. This is the new normal. People will need to move if they don't want to be rebuilding every couple years.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Move where? Are you suggesting we just abandon everywhere within hundreds of miles of the coast? People living hundreds of miles inland and not in a flood plain are affected by this as well. Look at an elevation map of North Carolina, and then tell me which side you think would be safer to be on: the side with mountains, or the low lying side by the ocean?

Because it was the western part of NC that got fucking wrecked. Suggesting that people should have foreseen this as inevitable when they chose to be born into communities that have been in the same place for literally hundreds of years without experiencing floods on this level is unrealistic, as is expecting people to just up and move with money they may not have to places where they have no community.

Expecting that we can just offload the price of climate disasters on those affected by going "oh well you should have just lived somewhere else" isn't just inhumane, it's ostrich head in sand behavior. Your community isn't safe from climate change, either. You better hope people haven't run out of empathy by the time you or your family need help.

[–] bamfic@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Hah and abandon NYC, Boston, DC, SF, LA, Sydney, plus entire countries like Holland, the UK, India with its billion people, etc? This is madness. There is nowhere safe to go and the numbers of people to be displaced are staggering

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 0 points 2 days ago

"One rule for thee, another for me" is indeed a not great proposition. Unfortunately, NC voted for Trump that did so much to cause that quoted thought to flourish, and also to harm the climate further e.g. withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord.

Democrats were the ones who have historically offered aid to those affected by massive natural disasters, and Republicans are the ones who claim that such aid should not be offered, except ofc when it happens in their own area (e.g. Chris Christy advocating for rich people:s second, beach homes in NJ vs. his earlier thoughts when it was poor people in New Orleans that lost everything).

So let's hope that NC wakes up to facts, as opposed to e.g. voting for Trump a third time in a row, and thereby further deepening this hole that we are digging ourselves into.

Politics matters, as in literally life and death.