Maybe the problem isn't living in a dry climate, but rather, living in boxes dictated by the zeitgeist and restrictive building codes and homeowners associations.
Of course, if you're surrounded by fuel-boxes, it could get pretty hot in *your* earthen home. But if *all* of them were earthen, there'd be nothing to burn.
You make good points, Matt. I'm going to give a serious reply to a tongue-in-cheek post, but speaking as a Californian whose house/land has burned (in 2017), we can't just say, "Don't live there." For one thing, much of the Earth's surface will become literally uninhabitable over the next few decades (ex. 100+ days/year of wet bulb heat). People will need to live in places that are dangerous and degraded but still physically habitable (as dry California, with some ocean influence, probably mostly will be).
For another thing, we need to be careful about telling people to abandon their homes. I don't mean their houses; I mean that land they are from. Many will have to or die. But our connection to land is one of our deepest means to loving and protecting the Earth. Home can't just be written off as a financial failure, any more than a decrepit relative could be.
For California, it is overpopulated, and I think many will move, which would be good ecologically. But for those who stay, the state of California needs to do a phenomenally better job, almost a 180 degree pivot, away from incentivizing (almost demanding) McMansions and toward incentivizing sustainable housing: tiny, passive, cob, mobile, cheap, low-emissions to (re)build. Or in raw economic terms, if it only takes $20,000 to build a cob house, many don't even need home owners insurance, or just an affordable pittance.
Thank you Arwen. I agree the solution is a combination of not living in harms way if you don't have to and if you do, to build in a more sustainable and resilient way.
Earthen homes with living roofs don't burn.
Just sayin'.
Maybe the problem isn't living in a dry climate, but rather, living in boxes dictated by the zeitgeist and restrictive building codes and homeowners associations.
Of course, if you're surrounded by fuel-boxes, it could get pretty hot in *your* earthen home. But if *all* of them were earthen, there'd be nothing to burn.
https://www.mudgirls.ca/
You make good points, Matt. I'm going to give a serious reply to a tongue-in-cheek post, but speaking as a Californian whose house/land has burned (in 2017), we can't just say, "Don't live there." For one thing, much of the Earth's surface will become literally uninhabitable over the next few decades (ex. 100+ days/year of wet bulb heat). People will need to live in places that are dangerous and degraded but still physically habitable (as dry California, with some ocean influence, probably mostly will be).
For another thing, we need to be careful about telling people to abandon their homes. I don't mean their houses; I mean that land they are from. Many will have to or die. But our connection to land is one of our deepest means to loving and protecting the Earth. Home can't just be written off as a financial failure, any more than a decrepit relative could be.
For California, it is overpopulated, and I think many will move, which would be good ecologically. But for those who stay, the state of California needs to do a phenomenally better job, almost a 180 degree pivot, away from incentivizing (almost demanding) McMansions and toward incentivizing sustainable housing: tiny, passive, cob, mobile, cheap, low-emissions to (re)build. Or in raw economic terms, if it only takes $20,000 to build a cob house, many don't even need home owners insurance, or just an affordable pittance.
I recommend Small Is Necessary: https://www.plutobooks.com/9780745334226/small-is-necessary/
Thank you Arwen. I agree the solution is a combination of not living in harms way if you don't have to and if you do, to build in a more sustainable and resilient way.
It’s not that much at all to do with climate change but it is to do with local baseline climate and predictable weather changes.
Shame on those that did not manage the risk of the local environment, and the lesson is much more adaption to weather extremes is needed.