• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    The problem is a town was built where there should not be one. Flood plains WILL flood. Rebuilding is pointless. It will just be destroyed again. At some point we have to cut our losses.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      “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.

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months 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

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      On top of what the other person said people still need to live in those places. It is actually crazy to say that the entire south-eastern seaboard of the United States should just be permanently evacuated wholesale. We could slow, or even stop, a lot of this by just admitting that climate change is real and doing something about it and it would be a helluva lot cheaper than turning several states in ghost towns.

      • OpenStars@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        During the pandemic, Trump dragged his feet in developing a response to it - leaked conversations mentioned how individual #1 liked the fact that it was primarily affecting highly liberal areas such as NYC and LA, while leaving conservative strongholds such as Idaho and Utah alone, and had asked about delaying the federal response a bit so as to let the people in the former stew in it a bit more, for his political advantage.

        Also I note that that same individual #1 was in charge of nationwide disaster recovery efforts - even going so far as to take the binders of ready-made plans and throw them into the garbage.

        So this whole “it is not the job of the government to use its tax collected revenue to take care of We The People” is very much by design. i.e. not merely a factual matter but a political one, in having to choose between deeper tax breaks for the wealthy vs. preparedness. And Individual #1 made that choice, in conjunction with Congress, that now applies to us all.

        In fact, the former swing state turned Republican stronghold NC is one of the very reasons why climate change is hitting us so strong and fast, unprepared and seemingly even unawares.

        Perhaps “admitting that climate change is real and doing something about it” is something that NC will now change its mind about, so that the federal government can do differently?

        But I somewhat doubt it. It is very hard to help someone who seems dead set against being helped, nor allowing the rest of us to help ourselves as well (see e.g. medically necessary abortions).