If you want to get a realistic perspective on the government's honest understanding of what will happen, knowledge of how property insurance regs are changing is essential. Like you say, when it comes to making money, all the bullshit and posturing from every direction becomes clear for what it is.
Even better is watching what the U.S. Military does. When I was a reserve officer in the 1990s, the Navy was already quietly refitting its bases to accommodate ongoing sea-level rise. They wouldn't do this as a random precaution--it's difficult and expensive, and when it doesn't involve building bombs or jets to carry them, they DoD is more judicious with its spending.
I often hear a very porous argument against climate change: Billionaires own expensive beachfront properties. I don't think I need to even explore the raucous short-sightedness of that idea here.
Good point regarding the military, which is one of the few governmental arms that takes climate change seriously.
Regarding the beach billionaires, losing their homes is a trivial cost relative to their overall wealth. They'll pay $100M for the view for a year or two--but their movements and habits are in no way a proxy for climate science, underwriting risk, or macroeconomic decision-making.
The military acknowledges the reality and is serious about the science. But I wouldn't classify it as a green enterprise just yet. I haven't verified this, but between the natgas pipeline, the F-15s, and the general expolosions, I don't think the Ukraine war is especially good for the environment. It's probably even worse than the nitrogen emissions being used by Bill Gates et al. as an excuse to shut down Dutch farms right now.
I didn't say that the military is doing anything green--they're simply taking it as a serious threat with major security implications. But the U.S. military, at least according to Mother Jones and others, is the single biggest emitter or GHG in the world. But hey, at least the situation in Ukraine is recycling and giving new life to U.S.'s old weapons. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-climate-change-neta-crawford-book/
If you want to get a realistic perspective on the government's honest understanding of what will happen, knowledge of how property insurance regs are changing is essential. Like you say, when it comes to making money, all the bullshit and posturing from every direction becomes clear for what it is.
Even better is watching what the U.S. Military does. When I was a reserve officer in the 1990s, the Navy was already quietly refitting its bases to accommodate ongoing sea-level rise. They wouldn't do this as a random precaution--it's difficult and expensive, and when it doesn't involve building bombs or jets to carry them, they DoD is more judicious with its spending.
I often hear a very porous argument against climate change: Billionaires own expensive beachfront properties. I don't think I need to even explore the raucous short-sightedness of that idea here.
Good point regarding the military, which is one of the few governmental arms that takes climate change seriously.
Regarding the beach billionaires, losing their homes is a trivial cost relative to their overall wealth. They'll pay $100M for the view for a year or two--but their movements and habits are in no way a proxy for climate science, underwriting risk, or macroeconomic decision-making.
The military acknowledges the reality and is serious about the science. But I wouldn't classify it as a green enterprise just yet. I haven't verified this, but between the natgas pipeline, the F-15s, and the general expolosions, I don't think the Ukraine war is especially good for the environment. It's probably even worse than the nitrogen emissions being used by Bill Gates et al. as an excuse to shut down Dutch farms right now.
I didn't say that the military is doing anything green--they're simply taking it as a serious threat with major security implications. But the U.S. military, at least according to Mother Jones and others, is the single biggest emitter or GHG in the world. But hey, at least the situation in Ukraine is recycling and giving new life to U.S.'s old weapons. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-climate-change-neta-crawford-book/
It's too bad that the World Health Organization itself is now a threat to human safety, security, and thriving.