BC is burning, and I saw this post on Facebook.

Nah, climate change isn't real.

Don't worry, glorified golf course sprinklers will save us!

I know, this is jaded for a solar punk post, but we don't need sprinkler defense - we need megacorps to stop producing 50% of global emissions

all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 36 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

Somewhere, some day, a billionaire will see this and tell someone to make this happen around his private doomsday bunker/spa retreat to weather out the totally normal summer temperatures to come. Just until the Mars colony is up and running, of course.

I love how they snuck "commercial" into the post, too. Like, obviously it has to be commercialized, can't fathom having any poor peoples' homes saved, after all.

Technical limitations? Bah! That's a typical poor people argument, they always lack vision!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    I agree with the overall sentiment in the post, but it's also undeniable that we need to invest on disaster preparedness, given that extreme weather events are more and more common now.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I agree with you but trouble is of course that without good policy, the cost of infrastructure will just get dumped on the bottom 99% while the benefit will be corrupted and skewed to unfairly benefit the 1%.

    That's obviously already true of a lot of other infrastructure. People can barely afford basic fucking maintenance as is. Without undoing the dynamic already in place it'll just keep happening with new disaster infrastructure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I was thinking the other day, we need to get drone tech caught up to the point where we can use it in forest management to catch fires early.

    I know forests need to burn, but we need to be able to control them, and manage them with prescribed burns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    (As you may already know) The problem with "forests need to burn" is, while it is technically part of natural forest cycles in some areas of the world, it is also true that natural cycles were relatively stable and worked before human-caused climate change. Now that climates are unstable and shifting we are getting crazy amounts of wind, heat, and drought that are accelerating fires in unpredictable ways, including in areas where forest fire was not the primary mechanism for recycling and regrowth.

    Fun times 😂 especially when there are still people out there refusing any degree of responsibility who just want to be mad and hurt people for fun. Ugh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago

    Oh, we've completely fucked ecosystem balance. That said, that doesn't mean human managed ecosystems are bad, or that actively managing ecosystems is bad. It's just a lot of work, and you have to figure out what you want that ecosystem to look like and what function it will have.

    Arguably, self sustaining (e.g., natural) ecosystems are ideal soley because we don't have to manage them.

    There is also value natural ecosystems because that's how they evolved, and everything fits nicely, but we've long since impacted all ecosystems to some degree so the point is kind of moot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago

    Please implement my slop image as policy, my corporate sycophant agrees it will work

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    but... but... Think of all the data centers you could power with all that water!

    (/s)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Doesn't matter if the emissions are stopped now, still need damage mitigation because the planet is already hot (we should also reduce emissions of course)

    Also the whole megacorps pollution thing is about as problematic as the personal carbon footprint idea. If you think the companies are causing all the pollution, it's easier to keep consuming the fuel and goods that those companies oil and energy produces. Like for example if you live somewhere in the western world and think that one of the world's largest polluters, China Coal, isn't affected by your consumption habits, unfortunately you're pretty likely wrong.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah people keep on thinking there's going to be some easy policy to implement that will make global warming go away.

    Nope. The CO2 is in the atmosphere. Even when we get to net zero emissions that CO2 will still be there. It will be around a hundred years to remove it and that's 100 years after we start removing it from the atmosphere. We haven't started yet.

    It's just a more moderate kind of climate change denial to think that the problems we're experiencing right now will somehow go away as soon as someone else fixes the problem somehow. How things are right now is how it will be for the rest of our lives.

    And yes it's everyone's responsibility to do something about this. It's weird that the same people that understand that supply side economics don't work and that the war on drugs is stupid because drugs sill somehow be supplied as long as there's demand for them. Suddenly when the topic is global warming it's 100% about the oil companies (the suppliers) so there's nothing that the people that create demand for fossil fuels need to do. Yes the government and industry needs to do their part, but we all need to do our part too.

    The best time to have done something was 20 years ago. The second best time to do something is right now. Everyone should think about what they can do about global warming and do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I agree with a lot of what you said.

    We are pretty boned though. Look at COVID - it was actively killing people right in front of our eyes and we still bickered about what the right approach was and squabbled even when we knew it.

    Climate change is a slower poison, unfortunately, and humans don't do well with things that are tomorrow's problem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    and the idea will get cut as soon as someone says it means higher taxes

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    The Botanic Garden in Australia's Blue Mountains has just finished installing one of these around the perimeter. All going well will it will protect it against the next big fire. Added bonus of watering the trees when required.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    Having pipes and reservoirs full of water just because maybe it could possibly help some things and people not burn on the off chance that there happens to be a fire in that area would be an insane waste of a resource data centers desperately need right now.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Uh they have many many water systems in Kelowna already.

    Commercial watering systems exist already and have been used to fight fires already.

    If anyone wants local Kelowna news, search for castanet and if you can get past the extremely ridiculous amateur design, you can see news directly from that area

    Also lake okanagan is huge, the cost of water is nothing, the equipment to use it is a different story

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    better keep the fire away from the naquadria deposits.

  • source