this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
189 points (98.5% liked)

Futurology

2556 readers
51 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Unless it's your house that is burning down because of unusually hot dry weather ... no one really cares or wants to admit that it has anything to do with climate change.

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is a narrative created by the incumbent Fossil Fuel industry.

In reality, everyone is either directly or indirectly affected by the fires and everyone benefits from reducing climate change change.

The Renewable and related industries will be much better for the economy and capitalism.

[–] voidx@futurology.today 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

I fail to understand why they stick with fossil fuels even though renewable deployments are cheaper than ever. Although there's misinformation and politics, they should look at long term profits..

[–] Salvo@aussie.zone 12 points 3 months ago

Sunk cost fallacy. They have already invested so much in fossil fuel infrastructure that they feel that if they give up now, they would have wasted all their money.

The fact that that the money is wasted whether they pivot to renewables or not something they consider. In fact, if they can lever their existing infrastructure they can be much more competitive than any new renewable energy provider.

[–] DrunkenPirate 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, I have to second this statement. I think humans just can’t anticipate well. In combination with money, a rare event will be neglected or ignored. Think of IT security or pandemic countermeasures for example.

I live in Germany. Europes devil is water. Lots of water from the sky. Rain the volume of an entire year within 2-3 days.

In 2021, in a hilly area many small villages were washed away from a used to be small tiny river. Did people learn? No.

Since that event, we had several more heavy rain events in Europe that either flushed town or drowned entire areas. Last one this summer in Spain Castillia.

Do people learn? No, still the right-wing parties in Germany are on upswings. And so the Governments.

[–] liuther9@feddit.nl 4 points 3 months ago

Tldr. Most people are stupid

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Kremlin propaganda (in various ways, sometimes in free natural gaz) isn't to be forgotten.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

If you depend on oil companies for "rationality":

That cheapest new energy is solar then wind gives the oil company a negative impact on its existing assets. Suppressing renewables through bribery/politics keeps consumers addicted to their product, and keeps prices high. Nationalizing oil companies, without compensation for shareholders, is both appropriate punishment, and only way to stop their lobbying corrupting democracy.

[–] Aggravationstation@feddit.uk 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Rich and famous people are being affected, the time has come to do something about it

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

Shit I'll take it at this point.

But billionaires weren't really affected, so I still doubt it.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They just need to not allow any insurance cancelations on policies paid up and only rebuild not fire resistant homes, cement, metal roofs are a most, metal shutters on all windows.

[–] argiope@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The reason why a lot of California homes are built with lumber is that more fire resistant materials like bricks and cement collapse during earthquakes.

[–] DrunkenPirate 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Other earthquake regions in the world build their houses with concrete and cement as well. It‘s possible.

However, structures that are resistant against fire and earthquake might be costly.

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

There's not a single thread about this fire where some Californians have excuses for why they simply can't have their entire state burn to a crisp year after year. They really on that brainwash shit

[–] Shortstack@reddthat.com 0 points 3 months ago

Good thing California is flush with money

[–] Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago

And cap insurance profits & executive compensation instead of premiums. A cap on premiums makes insurance non-viable even for a non-profit if the risk is too high, while a cap in profits lets it be valued appropriately. The cap on executive compensation is needed because without that they'd raise premiums excessively & pay themselves the extra instead of accumulating that as company profit for their stock price.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago

No, no, didn't you hear? It's all one guy's fault. Nobody knows how or why, but Trump would never lie. It's all Newsom's fault.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

There's 2 missing adaptation policies.

  1. Deforestation around homes replaced with solar. Maybe fruit bushes under solar panels to help against mudslides. Rebuilding homes with metal roofs and solar to make them fireproof. Deforesting is easier insurance management than retrofitting homes.

  2. Utilities owning CA government to stop home and community solar has to stop. Home+community solar replacing forests is an alternative to fire risks from transmission lines, and charging rate payers instead of shareholders whenever they cause a fire.

Solar not only provides economic value instead of just costs, it helps with both long term path to 3C, and insurance/government burden to property survivability. Solar energy is more decarbonization than trees.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

I think the fires show the need for water in LA