Re: Leaving climate treaties

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, JAB wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:27:27 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>

I will gain due to increased industry and prosperity which will increase
the value of my investments.

>
What is being overlooked by those supporting the "good ole boy"
industries who support conservative politicians is the cost to society
as these devastating weather events happen more/more.
============================================================
>
May 17, 2024 - Deadly Houston windstorm estimated to have caused $5B
to $7B in damage, AccuWeather tells ABC13
>
Hurricane Beryl caused over $2.5 billion in wind damage...
FOX Weather
>
AccuWeather estimates Beryl will ultimately lead to $28-32 billion in
economic losses in the US
https://abc13.com/post/hurricane-beryl-damage-cost-accuweather-estimates-economic-loss/15048656/
=============================================================
>
Republicans have not factored in the cost to society....egocentric
reasoning on their part.
>

No, there's no proof of climate being affected by that. It's solar cycles and natural phenomena. Should there be any effects, we're well equipped to handle that where it is needed. Completely unnecessary to lock down the entire planet, reducing everyones quality of life to medieval times.
Much better to focus on a few hotspots, and let people move where they will.
The idea that the climate should be static and that people should live exactly where they are living now, forever, is deeply flawed and not at a single point in history, have people not moved around. Moving around to where the weather is best at the moment, is natural and it is how we solve problems with changing living areas.
As for beryl, sure, but there were costs historically too, and that's a great incentive to move away, or reinforce your home if you insist on staying in hurricane territory.