• linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    They got 36cm of rain in short order. Places that aren’t in the 100-year flood plan still got drowned.

    The area is primarily rolling hills. So every time it flattens out just a little bit every tiny creek just overflowed.

    A couple hundred miles inland you can’t just expect everyone to build only on the top of the highest location.

    This is deep in climate change denier country. I suspect we’re about to get some climate change converts, after it’s way too late.

    • Crampon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m not claiming to know anything about this specific flood. Sure might be sick idk.

      But there’s a huge amount of crisis’ that got greater because of how we built, not what happened.

      Take the flood in Pakistan last year. The same flood happening 50 years ago in the same area wouldn’t be such a catastrophe. What caused it to be so severe was the amount of people who had settled in a valley which is carved out by smelting water from glaciers. Building smarter is the most rational solution for short term gains. Stabilizing the climate is a much greater endeavour, and might be impossible short term.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yeah, that’s fair. For the most part in the US insurance companies charge you based on the 100-year flood plan for a given area. A place is in danger of flooding They charge you a significant amount of money for your home insurance which is required to get a loan for a home.

        With the escalating climate issues however, I suspect a lot of those insurance rates are under covered.