It's actually a better take than many conservative voices. Arguing this is a problem with a solution (no matter how facile) is better than arguing it's not a problem. And also, yeah, stop moving to Florida, so he's right on that point. I live in Global Warming Paradise (no natural disasters, more abundant fresh water than anywhere on Earth, save for maybe Lake Baikal, mild temperatures, ~600-800 ft above sea level), so I'm expecting a rebound of the Great Lakes region after decades of decline as one small regional benefit. One could argue that my property value nominally rising isn't that great of a benefit to humanity relative to 100,000,000 people dying of thirst, but I'm a glass half-full sort of dude.I also love how Ben Shapiro's like "sea level rise? just sell your house, dumbass!".
Fair 'nough, on your end. Self-interested, market-guiding Keynesian handjob. Shapiro's take still ignores the fact that the cycle-of-poverty contingent are almost 100% renters, and can't simply flip a property they don't own to offset thousands of dollars in costs to move their family of 5 or 6 or 7 at will. Or that nobody wants to buy an underwater property. And the problem skews heavily non-white, because wealth skews white, because the U.S. more or less bailed on reconstruction and reparations. Not sure how this idea is still controversial for a huge subset of the U.S., apart from intentional propaganda to the contrary. (oH iT's SiMpLy CuLtuRaL bAnKruPTcy uNrElAtEd tO the EChoEs of SlAvErY) Thanks, Ben Shapiro!
JP Morgan Chase Research, in their preface to their study on the economic effects of Hurricane Harvey on Texas in 2017, said words to the effect of "natural disasters are terrible for the economy but great for GDP." Their argument - and the fact that they have to make this argument says a lot about capitalism as practiced currently - was that the wholesale destruction of existing goods is obviously terrible for the human beings within capitalism but that the need to replace everything that had been destroyed was great for sales. I am really coming around to the idea that the externalization of "human beings within capitalism" is the original sin of modern American capitalism and that it is not a Democratic viewpoint, not a Republican viewpoint but a human viewpoint that the economic system should work for the bulk of the people subject to it. The Republican argument for renewables is "energy independence" "jobs for the heartland" and "exportable technology." The Republican argument for environmental protectionism is "keeps farming jobs from moving to Canada." The Republican argument for immigration is "weakens our adversaries by siphoning off their best, brightest and most motivated." I think the core issue of the American Right is they're entirely beholden to a populist ideology (white christian males over all in all things) in order to get the votes to support an oligarchic business strategy (all proceeds to the 1%). It was never going to work forever, it was always going to end in a messy messy way, everyone just kicked the can down the road in hopes they'd be out of office before it exploded. It exploded Jan 6 2021, and now we get to see what the cleanup looks like.
Absolutely (alt. title: One of the richest fuckers on Earth realizes climate change disproportionately impacts the poors negatively, which is fine, as is continuing to bolster petrolstates). Both the Harvey-specific and generalized climate calculus contain a disregard for a dynamic that enables further wealth disparities. Weird, coming from a wealthy guy! Pedantic squabblings, for posterity (as always, there's just so many goddamn lurkers here): "white christian males over all in all things" is much more of a racist than true-blue populist ideology. "all proceeds to the 1%" makes it even more transparent. Agree with your interpretations here almost completely.