Palisades Fire - Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s awful, but it’s God’s way of sending a message.

OK?
What's the message

I haven’t figured it out yet, but it doesn’t look good.

Doesn't look good for who?

For those living in Alaska… Who do you think Einstein!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a complete disaster that there’s no water coming out of some taps and fire hydrants. I wonder if the insurance companies will sue the local government for that. It seems like the losses are a lot higher than they otherwise would have been.

I feel like people simply do not understand how water systems work. There is not an unlimited supply of water in any area. The water in the area is stored in massive tanks capable of holding multiple million gallons of water. These tanks help maintain enough pressure for water to travel in uphill areas through pipes to homes and fire hydrants. They saw four times the normal usage for 15 hours and water pressure was lowered. They are repeatedly filling the tanks but the fire fighters are using the water as quickly as it can be filled, and the pressure can't get to the point it needs to get to in order to send the water uphill. This is also a common issue with fighting wildfires and has happened many times. It is just how water systems work. In this case the strain was worse on the water system than normal because they typically rely on more air support to drop water but haven't been able to due to the winds.

The city of Richmond has been without water for like 4 days people and we have a republican governor! Just as a reminder. Everything in our modern world is really just held together by a delicate balance and can easily fall apart if something goes wrong or is overused.

https://apnews.com/article/richmond-virginia-water-outage-winter-storm-bafe6389f59f16f194df4a46975f9461

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

Well, I'm still insured here in Washington, DC. So, you know, it's not really my problem. You're the one who can't get insured.

Where do you suggest the CA climate refugees go? Since the entire state is now a fire risk?

Texas? DMV?

New England is a good option. Ohio.

So these 5-6 states will be creating 14m housing units for Californians, who can no longer get homeowners insurance?

Californians will need to figure it out. If they want insurance, I guess. So will Floridians.

In Florida people are making changes because of the insurance costs. One of my very wealthy siblings just sold their very expensive newly built house because it was on a body of water and the insurance costs went up like crazy in one year. Sibling just sold that house to someone from the midwest and purchased a smaller house a few blocks away. The insurance fees went down drastically.

A cousin elsewhere in Fl decided to sell their sfh and move to a condo only a few miles away also because of the insurance.

I can cite more cases of people I know moving less than 20 miles away from where they live in Fl to decrease insurance costs. They are all moving away from the ocean or lakes.

You can’t expect 17m people to move on their own. You people are ridiculous. I live in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Makes you wonder if it is an act of terrorism. You don't need a dirty bomb or something huge to cause massive destruction. Something as small as purposefully throwing a cigarette onto dry brush can in CA can now cause mass destruction and massive financial pain for the whole country.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

What should be done about the vast numbers of structures on the New Madrid fault, none of which are built to withstand even a mild earthquake? What should be done about Texas and its failed power grid. At least 365 people died directly from heat in Texas last year, so what about that? Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that no one can live anywhere.

Exactly. People on this thread are insane. Honesty I can see why the country elected a felon because people are showing here a) that it’s up to individuals to take care of themselves when they can’t get ins and the govt isn’t fixing climate change; b) if it doesn’t affect them they don’t care; and c) if it doesn’t affect them they don’t want govt resources spent; and d) there are tons of climate deniers on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how long do people think recovery/rebuilding is going to take? The real estate is too valuable to not rebuild. 5-7 years? 10 years?

State Farm and farmers already stopped insuring in CA.

The remaining insurers will pay out these claims and then go bankrupt or stop insuring as well.
So it will depend on the homeowner- if they owned their home outright they will rebuild and self insure. If they had a note on their home they should pay off their note if they can and move.

Either way, after this real estate should be more affordable- insurance not so much.

Real Estate is going to go way up, including rentals. Right now we don’t know how many Homes are lost. They’re reporting 9000 structures so far, but that includes commercial, outbuildings, even RVs and sometimes cars. But obviously there are going to be thousands of homes lost. Most people are going to want to stay as close to home as they can. For all people say awful things about California, the demand for housing is very strong. The fire is creating a large reduction to the supply and an increase to the demand, so prices will increase.

Without strong state support it is the renters and the lower income owners who will be pushed out.

State is almost bankrupt and cannot cover this. Commercial insurance wants out of California.

Self insurance is going to be the only option for a decade and very, very few can swing that.

People have been saying the same thing about the Florida insurance market since Hurricane Andrew, but it still limps along. The same will happen in California

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

Where do you suggest the CA climate refugees go? Since the entire state is now a fire risk?

Texas? DMV?

New England is a good option. Ohio.

So these 5-6 states will be creating 14m housing units for Californians, who can no longer get homeowners insurance?

Yes. Between abandoned houses in Ohio and Detroit they don’t need to look at the other 4 states

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Makes you wonder if it is an act of terrorism. You don't need a dirty bomb or something huge to cause massive destruction. Something as small as purposefully throwing a cigarette onto dry brush can in CA can now cause mass destruction and massive financial pain for the whole country.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

What should be done about the vast numbers of structures on the New Madrid fault, none of which are built to withstand even a mild earthquake? What should be done about Texas and its failed power grid. At least 365 people died directly from heat in Texas last year, so what about that? Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that no one can live anywhere.

Your hysterics lead you to that conclusion. But it's pretty clear LA is becoming increasingly inhospitable in a way the majority of other places aren't.

DP but what hysterics? It is factual and well-documented that the Midwest is completely unprepared for a massive earthquake and in fact they have chosen not to strengthen building codes.

Yeah, why don’t we add in everyone along the coast, and 25-50 miles in for low lying levels and the earthquake, in WA and OR who aren’t prepared for the coming tsunami.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

Where do you suggest the CA climate refugees go? Since the entire state is now a fire risk?

Texas? DMV?

New England is a good option. Ohio.

So these 5-6 states will be creating 14m housing units for Californians, who can no longer get homeowners insurance?

Yes. Between abandoned houses in Ohio and Detroit they don’t need to look at the other 4 states

Okay, so true Trump admin will help them move and get good jobs there so they aren’t on welfare? What is his climate refugee program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Born and raised in LA and I could care less about these fires.
LA is grown so much in last 40 years there are people over consuming the water of 5 states and building in geographical areas that are nearly inaccessible for a response by heavy equipment.

Let it burn and limit rebuilding to 1 out 10 homes.
Maybe people will move from a freaking natural desert not sustainable for mass
Human populations.

At least 5 people are dead. Thousands are suffering trauma you can’t imagine. Try to act like you at least have cognitive empathy.

Check your water statements. Do you want California agriculture to stop? That’s where the majority of the water goes. It’s not a population issue.

I did not say I want anyone to die. Do you know that area?
The outskirts of LA to Lancaster and Victorville are straight up desert and where NASA did all their X planes testing. Like where we tested experimental aircraft because it was a freaking desert and there was desert, military bases, rattlesnakes Joshua trees and jack rabbits. Not Many people. If there was a fire there was no congestion to get out.

I am fine with a small amount of people living in areas where nature does not support it; but when you turn it into Fairfax county and then the palisades into McLean with mountains what do you expect?

That area has always had high winds in the winter since long before man was on earth. And, yes, little water - hence it is a desert.

Like I said - some places mother nature is going to flex and people should take notice of her warning.

You cannot city plan in a f’n canyon neighborhood with single point of failure surrounding you. These are big mountains and winds, egress and water are all limiting factors.

Okay. So where are relocating these millions of people?

“Where are relocating” - you need to complete a sentence with a pro-noun there.

If you used “we” you are a complete idiot. Not society’s job to relocate people from illogical places to live.

If you used “they” then you are still pretty much an idiot. They are the evolved superior species on the planet - they can figure it out for themselves for a more logical habitat.

Oh, so you want wealthy Californians to buy up all the land in the tiny chunks of the country where there is lesser climate risk? That seems totally workable. 🙄

Question: do you ever talk to human beings other than your mom when she brings you your lunch to your basement hole?

Like I said, I know this area. I grew up there.

It is a lot more populated now.

If rich people want to buy the lots for pennies on the dollar, and have no hope of insurance and assume all risk have at it.

Then, after the next inevitable fire rolls through, those rich dumbasses lose millions on their unsustainable mansions maybe the next buyer will get it - this location sucks.

And in real estate- location is everything.

I would type more but mom is folding my laundry and asking why I still have my vibrating bunny.

You didn’t need to say that. It’s obvious from your posts. We all knew already.

Yeah, doubling down on sarcasm is like talking about yourself in the third person.

It just does not work. Someday you will be witty.


The fair insurance collective most palisades homeowners have since they could not have traditional insurance will raise all California’s insurance rates as it will hit 10-20B.
The fund has like 500m - and by CA law
Can collect from all homeowners. So all of the state homeowners pays for the average 3.5m palisades homes.

Our homeowners ins skyrocketed a year ago, so we’re all paying for climate change. There was a thread on here a year ago with many people in same boat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Makes you wonder if it is an act of terrorism. You don't need a dirty bomb or something huge to cause massive destruction. Something as small as purposefully throwing a cigarette onto dry brush can in CA can now cause mass destruction and massive financial pain for the whole country.

Especially if your government has completely abdicated on any fuel reduction activities.

California already has more hybrid and EV’s than any state in the country.

Psst: they are still denying climate change. All they care about are a few weeds in an area they've said is way overcrowded. They think there are no other factors than the brush they imagine is choking the whole landscape there. The winds are not an issue. The climate is not an issue.

Are you denying climate change if you rebuild in a high risk fire zone?

What should be done about the vast numbers of structures on the New Madrid fault, none of which are built to withstand even a mild earthquake? What should be done about Texas and its failed power grid. At least 365 people died directly from heat in Texas last year, so what about that? Your line of thinking leads to the conclusion that no one can live anywhere.

Exactly. People on this thread are insane. Honesty I can see why the country elected a felon because people are showing here a) that it’s up to individuals to take care of themselves when they can’t get ins and the govt isn’t fixing climate change; b) if it doesn’t affect them they don’t care; and c) if it doesn’t affect them they don’t want govt resources spent; and d) there are tons of climate deniers on this thread.

This thread is bananas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm pp, and before you state this is Pacific Palisades problem, people all over CA have been living for decades in places that haven't had fires...so just everyone leave CA???

That isn't what was stated. NP here - my perspective is that not all risk is the same. From specific locations to precautions, it's not a blanket statement of insurance should be required to write all properties no questions asked. That's just not how business works. Or should work. People have to make an educated decision - meaning - you have to own up to your decisions. If it's a stupid move, you shouldn't make it so others have to absorb the impacts of your stupidity aka my insurance rates go up because you lived in a dangerous place. Again - not a blanket statement and not attributed to just this event but in general - you just can't allow idiots to do whatever they want and help them when their mistakes blow up.

So although I lived in areas of CA since the early 1970s that never had fires, and have since had detest ones in the last 10 years (in Northern CA!) which it seems like is the same for PP that insurers can now claim a fire risk? And you’re fine with that?! Crazy.

Climate change has happened. All of us have to deal with the ramifications. And yes, some of us will have to move. Some towns will even have to move or just stop existing. In fact, it's already happened.

Where do you suggest the CA climate refugees go? Since the entire state is now a fire risk?

Texas? DMV?

New England is a good option. Ohio.

So these 5-6 states will be creating 14m housing units for Californians, who can no longer get homeowners insurance?

Yes. Between abandoned houses in Ohio and Detroit they don’t need to look at the other 4 states

Okay, so true Trump admin will help them move and get good jobs there so they aren’t on welfare? What is his climate refugee program?

Climate refugees merely have to make it to the United States and they are completely safe here! Right? Right? Yeah right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

I don't really understand what you have in mind - like a continuous spray? Water isn't unlimited - hydrants in some of these areas are already running dry as firefighters use them. And any active system would presumably require power and somebody to man it. Plus spraying water in 100 mpg gusts probably not effective.

I know this kind of fire is unfamiliar to east coasters, I'm not mocking. But it's much bigger and faster than you are imagining. You're basically asking why Florida doesn't have some kind of pump to keep hurricanes out.

As with hurricanes, there are new building methods that help. Burying the power lines would be a huge help, but that's expensive and CA allowed it's power utility to be privatized. This is really a story of climate change + bad infrastructure decisions.

Have you ever seen crop irrigation systems, they implement rotating water cannons to cover large swaths of land. Install some of these and only turn them on when a fire is happening and a neighborhood is in danger. It’s not a complex idea.

LOL asking someone from CA if they've seen a crop sprinkler. Uh, yes, I have.
I tried to nicely explain already, but it's clear you are not familiar with fires, the terrain, or the water or electricity situation. But sure, you solved it, good job.

Yeah, still not sure how this idea isnt better than nothing. A quick google search shows that apparently there are companies that do provide this service. Adapting it to be an integral part of a community’s infrastructure would make sense.

https://www.wildfirewater.com/

I think this area would be hard because it is all hills and houses. There isn't space to put a massive sprinkler system.

I assume planes can scoop up water from the ocean to fight the fire? I am not sure how that works.

No you can’t dump sea water all over the land because you will salt the soil and nothing will ever grow there again.

You may not realize it, but I think you’re on to something. The grass growing then dying is the problem. More of them need rock gardens and to stop unwanted regrowing of brush

It's not the grass on the lawns that is the main culprit; it is the dry brush on the hillsides and canyons. Clearly some posters are very unfamiliar with California topography.

That’s the grass I’m talking about. It’s just grassy brush and small ground coverings that are overgrown then dries out when it stops raining. If the soil can be made fallow with salt then unwanted weedy grasses can’t grow there. Fire won’t spread over rocks and dirt. The fire is spreading because California is basically covered in kindling.

But if you didn’t have at least some kind of vegetation on the hillsides, erosion (when it does rain) would be much worse than it is now. If you think socal has mudslide problems now, what do you think it would be without plant life on the hills? Plus, that vegetation is critical habitat for birds and other animals.

There are drought tolerant and fire resistant plants. Cacti, redwoods, heavier trees with green wood that is hard to start fires with, succulents those wouldn’t ignite, they’d just melt. I’m not a botanist. In other countries hillsides are managed with terraces and rocks as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t fire mitigation systems installed as part of the public works systems, developments or private homes? Large water guns to create a barrier or cover a neighborhood?

I don't really understand what you have in mind - like a continuous spray? Water isn't unlimited - hydrants in some of these areas are already running dry as firefighters use them. And any active system would presumably require power and somebody to man it. Plus spraying water in 100 mpg gusts probably not effective.

I know this kind of fire is unfamiliar to east coasters, I'm not mocking. But it's much bigger and faster than you are imagining. You're basically asking why Florida doesn't have some kind of pump to keep hurricanes out.

As with hurricanes, there are new building methods that help. Burying the power lines would be a huge help, but that's expensive and CA allowed it's power utility to be privatized. This is really a story of climate change + bad infrastructure decisions.

Have you ever seen crop irrigation systems, they implement rotating water cannons to cover large swaths of land. Install some of these and only turn them on when a fire is happening and a neighborhood is in danger. It’s not a complex idea.

LOL asking someone from CA if they've seen a crop sprinkler. Uh, yes, I have.
I tried to nicely explain already, but it's clear you are not familiar with fires, the terrain, or the water or electricity situation. But sure, you solved it, good job.

Yeah, still not sure how this idea isnt better than nothing. A quick google search shows that apparently there are companies that do provide this service. Adapting it to be an integral part of a community’s infrastructure would make sense.

https://www.wildfirewater.com/

I think this area would be hard because it is all hills and houses. There isn't space to put a massive sprinkler system.

I assume planes can scoop up water from the ocean to fight the fire? I am not sure how that works.

No you can’t dump sea water all over the land because you will salt the soil and nothing will ever grow there again.

You may not realize it, but I think you’re on to something. The grass growing then dying is the problem. More of them need rock gardens and to stop unwanted regrowing of brush

It's not the grass on the lawns that is the main culprit; it is the dry brush on the hillsides and canyons. Clearly some posters are very unfamiliar with California topography.

That’s the grass I’m talking about. It’s just grassy brush and small ground coverings that are overgrown then dries out when it stops raining. If the soil can be made fallow with salt then unwanted weedy grasses can’t grow there. Fire won’t spread over rocks and dirt. The fire is spreading because California is basically covered in kindling.

But if you didn’t have at least some kind of vegetation on the hillsides, erosion (when it does rain) would be much worse than it is now. If you think socal has mudslide problems now, what do you think it would be without plant life on the hills? Plus, that vegetation is critical habitat for birds and other animals.

There are drought tolerant and fire resistant plants. Cacti, redwoods, heavier trees with green wood that is hard to start fires with, succulents those wouldn’t ignite, they’d just melt. I’m not a botanist. In other countries hillsides are managed with terraces and rocks as well.

None of those plants are native to the area. They’re all invasive. And none of the animal life is accustomed/adapted to them. You could cause some animal species to become extinct.

Fire is a natural occurrence in chaparral country. It’s humans who need to adapt, not the landscape. The landscape is millions of years old. It exists with periodic fires. We’re the ones having the problem.

[Anonymous]

My heart breaks 💔 for all those affected.
It is especially so sad seeing celebrities so humbled by seeing their homes burned to the ground.

Goes to show that someone can have everything…then lose it all in a heartbeat.

I also live in SoCal, about a two-hr drive South from Los Angeles.
My area is on high alert for critical fire 🔥 danger ⛔️ right now due to the hot, dry conditions, the gusty winds + the absence of humidity.

Am hoping we are safe but will continue praying for my neighbors up North……

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a complete disaster that there’s no water coming out of some taps and fire hydrants. I wonder if the insurance companies will sue the local government for that. It seems like the losses are a lot higher than they otherwise would have been.

I feel like people simply do not understand how water systems work. There is not an unlimited supply of water in any area. The water in the area is stored in massive tanks capable of holding multiple million gallons of water. These tanks help maintain enough pressure for water to travel in uphill areas through pipes to homes and fire hydrants. They saw four times the normal usage for 15 hours and water pressure was lowered. They are repeatedly filling the tanks but the fire fighters are using the water as quickly as it can be filled, and the pressure can't get to the point it needs to get to in order to send the water uphill. This is also a common issue with fighting wildfires and has happened many times. It is just how water systems work. In this case the strain was worse on the water system than normal because they typically rely on more air support to drop water but haven't been able to due to the winds.

The city of Richmond has been without water for like 4 days people and we have a republican governor! Just as a reminder. Everything in our modern world is really just held together by a delicate balance and can easily fall apart if something goes wrong or is overused.

https://apnews.com/article/richmond-virginia-water-outage-winter-storm-bafe6389f59f16f194df4a46975f9461

Climate disasters create more waste, use more natural resources, and on so it’s self-perpetuating.