In the southern Sierra Nevada, from 2011-2020, "due to the combination of wildfires, drought, and drought-associated beetle epidemics, 30% of the region's conifer forest transitioned to non-forest vegetation..."
We need to completely reimagine forestry and ecological restoration as a large-scale, hands-on undertaking, ruggedizing for what's coming, remaining aware of how we got here in the first place.
In a worsening planetary crisis, the claim that because no place is *completely* safe from (climate-intensified) risks, every place (no matter how great the risks it faces) is worthy of huge public investments in rebuilding and future protection is either uninformed or predatory.
"No place is completely safe, so we shouldn't judge people's choices about where to build and how"
combined with
"we must make every loss whole"
is brittleness denialism.
The vast majority of people in every society are harmed more severely by slow and disjointed climate action and response than they would be by the fastest and most quickly-spreading transformations.
I worry that a political system incapable of letting investors lose when their climate-impacted investments fail will grow more rapidly brittle than it would have otherwise.
"One thing I've learned in my years of whining about Florida’s unsustainable trajectory in the climate era is that most Floridians don’t care."
But, since it's your money they're spending to grow, rebuild, and eventually buy-out and bulldoze, you should.
Also, every nation on Earth — and every state and province and autonomous region, every county and parish and municipality — has. within it, it's own Florida.
On the need to grapple with the sheer scale of the ruggedization challenges facing us now:
"The more the government shelters people from the true and increasing cost of the choices they make in the face of global warming, the bigger the eventual bill."
tl;dr: steepening costs add the brittleness "find out" to the climate triangulation "fuck around."
Worth remembering: we don't know how to confidently price the magnitude of damage at the nexus of "slow action severely worsens the current planetary crisis" and "nations do little to ready their governance and ruggedize their systems."
"Literally, one-third of Pakistan is underwater right now, which has exceeded every boundary, every norm we've seen in the past... a crisis of unimaginable proportions."
A baseline goal for a city's climate plan: that there are enough homes for all its residents, and that every home will remain insurable as the impacts of the planetary crisis worsen fast.
In most places, this means large-scale building, ruggedization, and some triage/retreat.
Also, in a great many ways, building compact housing at scale, ruggedizing for climate realities and dropping urban emissions/ building sustainable prosperity are the same jobs... at least if you're doing them right.