this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
62 points (98.4% liked)

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

5205 readers
1025 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net
62
'Who will buy my house if they can't get insurance' (www.bbc.com)
submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

So as stupid as the position generally was, what he was saying is sea level rise and major climate shifts are not immediate, so as it starts getting bad, a person sells their home (for less that they bought it for) and the next person has it worse (but still "habitable") and sells it for less than they bought it for, and by the time it gets to the last seller who can't sell it to anyone, it's not worth much anyway.

Basically, if you have a nice home and make decent money, the house can keep getting passed to poorer and poorer people until only the poorest homeowner gets completely screwed, and that's okay because that's how the market goes.

His position wasn't stupid, it was evil.

Edit: though to add, if insurance companies won't offer insurance, his point is irrelevant, because you can't finance a house without insurance, and that makes that seller the end owner.

[–] Ducks@ducks.dev 3 points 1 year ago

While I agree with you, I think you're giving him too much credit. Ben doesn't seem like someone who puts much thought into what drivels from his mouth. He just wants to "win" the "debate"

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

While I know it wasn't the point he was trying to make, but it's a related point: a house really shouldn't be a commodity to be profited from. It should be an investment in your own future housing, not a way to make money. Anything else you buy, you expect to sell for less than you paid, but somehow you should always profit from selling your house? That's why we're in the current situation where young people can't afford a house. Because unless you build it yourself, you're paying for someone else to profit off their investment that they paid someone else to profit off before them, and we're expected to keep that train going with housing prices constantly going up.