this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5244 readers
417 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7
45
Can the ‘sand motor’ save West Africa’s eroding coast? (grist.org)
submitted 9 months ago by Ninjazzon@infosec.pub to c/climate
7 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When governments find themselves fighting the threat of coastal erosion, their default response tends to be pretty simple: If sand is disappearing from a beach, they pump in more sand to replace it. This strategy, known as “beach nourishment,” has become a cornerstone of coastal defenses around the world, complementing hard structures like sea walls. North Carolina, for instance, has dumped more than 100 million tons of sand onto its beaches over the past 30 years, at a cost of more than $1 billion.

The problem with beach nourishment is obvious. If you dump sand on an eroding beach, it’s only a matter of time before that new sand erodes. Then you have to do it all over again.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I understand the propaganda, but why is this better than building affordable housing in places with low risk of storm surge?

The reclamation process itself is half-baked too. Do you know where the sand for these reclamation projects comes from and how dredging that sand impacts coastal erosion?

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 3 points 9 months ago

Because for some strange reason most politicians arn’t rushing to dissolve their constituencies and tell the people who’s family’s have been living there for generations that they should just all be driven from their homes because their cities existence puts imposes a small cost on the people who really matter. Can’t imagine why.

I also don’t see how this makes it hard to build more affordable housing on the other side of the country. We need wood, anti-NIMBY legislation, and decent government investment in its people for that, not barges and pumping equipment.

Typically, i’d imagine the sand comes from the place it was eroding too, as well as local navigable or flood channels. Most of the projects i’ve seen the Core of Engineers do have used slurry pipelines from dredges a mile or less away, but I’ll admit that barging it in from further afield is also possible.