More insurance companies are fleeing the state because of the growing threat from natural disasters.

  • masterspace@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yup. People gonna have to move.

    Remember when people said that climate change would cost us trillions of dollars? This is why.

    • HipHoboHarold@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it’s gonna suck for most of us in a lot of ways. Like I moved up north partially because of politics back in 2014. Now some are eventually gonna follow and move up here as well. Plus, I can’t afford a house. A lot of people can’t afford one. But when more and more people come, we won’t have enough. Unless we see some real, meaningful changes in the way we handle housing, it’s gonna be a shit show.

      I was talking to my mom back in I think 2020 and the subject of the cost of a home came up. I told her how much they are here, and she said me and my boyfriend should move near her and some other family in St Louis. While I would love to be near family, I’m gay. I’m not moving to a red state. And I’m not looking to buy a house I will eventually need to abandon with no one buying it. That’s a lot of money to just lose.

      • PabloDiscobar@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A house is worth peanuts without water, this should be priority number one when purchasing a house. We should avoid cities and move closer to mountains where the rain will provide enough stream.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Plenty of cities have good access to water. It’s why most of them were built where they were in the first place. And for the most part, it’s the way you have the least impact on the environment.

          • PabloDiscobar@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Plenty of cities have good access to water. It’s why most of them were built where they were in the first place.

            That’s the way it used to be.

            Take the Rio Grande:

            Water restrictions ordered in Rio Grande Valley as drought persists

            ‘The actual lake is gone,’ Zapata County judge says

            McALLEN, Texas (Border Report) — The two largest cities in the Rio Grande Valley have implemented mandatory water restrictions as water levels in two reservoirs hit near-record lows due to an ongoing drought.

            Rathmell gave Border Report a tour of diminishing Falcon Lake on Thursday, and at the time advocated that cities downstream in the Rio Grande Valley should be forced to conserve water.

            Rathmell said that Falcon Lake is basically no more. It’s just an area where the Rio Grande river runs through.

            Cities will become traps. It was convenient before but now it is becoming a death trap, don’t purchase a house there, you become dependent on someone bringing food and water to you. If you are in the business of searching for a house, avoid cities.

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re cherry picking your examples. Most cities still do have great access to water. And that “dependence” is called civilization. Everyone has their own jobs to do so that we’re not all each our own homestead living off grid. It’s more efficient and resilient that way.

                • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You listed the same example several times, in quotes, not sourced links, and you’re also fear mongering on the level of a conspiracy theorist with no reason for why this would affect cities in the northeast, for instance. Your advice of moving to the mountains, taken en masse, would just result in cities existing there…with the same source of water.

                  • PabloDiscobar@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I see that you also downvoted my post about veganism and the cost of breeding cattle in term of water. I see a pattern there.

                    You listed the same example several times, in quotes

                    What are you talking about? It’s the same article about the rio grande. It’s not supposed to be multiple examples.

                    not sourced links

                    Paste it in any search engine, it’s the first result.

                    fear mongering on the level of a conspiracy theorist

                    I see your true colors now.

                    Your advice of moving to the mountains, taken en masse, would just result in cities existing there…with the same source of water.

                    Ridiculous, I’m not talking to the masses.

                    You brought nothing to the table, you saw a post about veganism and then you went full conspiracy theorist mode. Instead of discussing the case you just went for the downvote button. I’m not wasting more time with you.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’d be easier & cheaper to fix this one.

        We’re going to have to break a few eggs though, since we waited so long.

        By eggs I mean multinational corporations.

        • Captain_Ender@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some scientists theorize we’ve already passed the red line. The rest is just crowd control. Those eggs are gonna be broken but they’re probably gonna be a few billion people. Best to plan for the worst, hope for the best and doing both climate science and technical advances towards colonization.

          It’s not like the research and funding needs to go to one or the other. Never understood that argument, like what 10,000s of astrophysicists and engineers are just gonna be like “yeah let’s all stop or research today to save humanity” lmao.

          • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Colonizing other planets is not a solution. It is vastly harder to terraform Mars than to repair the damage we’ve done to Earth. Multiple technological Holy Grails must be discovered in order to make it even remotely possible. Not happening.

            A colony established on Mars with current technology would be completely dependent on Earth for food and other supplies.

            If we’ve passed the red line already, then it’s all over and we may as well live it up while we still can.

        • PabloDiscobar@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          “If I had a gun, with two bullets, and I was in a room with Automobile, Aviation and Advertisement, I would shoot Advertisement twice.”

          • ampersandrew@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Really? Automobile is plenty deserving, and shooting it means people have better options than flying for a lot of trips.