RCC: Act II wrote:
I would submit that most desirable and threatened ocean property in the world is owned, or access to it is owned, by very wealthy. When we are talking about "saving" those places, we should also not pretend that very wealthy do not stand to benefit from it. Look at Jamaica where the locals have very few places where they can access the beach since it's been slowly getting acquired by wealthy individuals, cruise companies, and private resorts.
It isn't that I don't think I understand, as much as I have trouble understanding what is implied without the conclusion that you are saying that we shouldn't fight climate change because, while maybe Bangladeshis will die in massive numbers as their water becomes undrinkable, rich people will benefit by not losing beachfront property.
I will try to make it clearer.
We all live on this planet and it's stupid to ruin it or pollute it. I am glad USA has environment laws, I am glad California has strict environmental laws.
However, not all laws and regulations are equal. Some cross over the line of smart policy into the selfish and sinister intentions. As an examples, there are plenty of construction regulations in California that are tied to environment but are really just anti-NIMY legislation for large scale residential constructions. Which in turn contributes to low supply and high rent prices.
To put it another way, just because the something is an environmental regulations or a law, doesn't mean we should stop being skeptical of it's viability, legality, and effectiveness.
Which kinda sounds like Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor except as a radical communist and with climate change instead of a nuclear missile.
I have to be missing something...
First time someone accused me of being a communist, it's kind of amusing but way off the mark.
For future reference I hate commies as much as nazis. Which anyone other than Mentat should interpret as that I loathe them and their philosophies of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.