[taneq]

> environmentalism sounds great until you realize you're largely advocating economically regressive policies that disproportionately impact the most vulnerable

Global warming is going to 'disproportionately impact the most vulnerable' even more. (Is there anything at all that won't? People with fewer resources have fewer options in dealing with new challenges, this seems like a fundamental fact.)

[eru]

> Is there anything at all that won't?

Yes. Decline in stock prices or real estate for example.

> People with fewer resources have fewer options in dealing with new challenges, this seems like a fundamental fact.

Yes, that's almost true by definition.

Even in my examples, in general the people who start out rich will still be better off after a stock market crash than the people who started out poor.

Look on the bright side though: by symmetry any disaster averted or condition improved also helps the vulnerable more.

[taneq]

Decline in stock prices often indicates issues with the economy which also result in companies trimming the fat across the board. This usually hits the more fungible staff first. Likewise, decline in real estate will force rental property owners to sell up, reducing the supply of rental properties - good news for renters looking to make the jump to home ownership but less so for anyone not in that position.

True that rich people (if they're not being stupid with their money) will be better positioned to buy cheap stocks after a crash and will multiply their fortunes in the long run.

I like your bright side.

[eru]

> Likewise, decline in real estate will force rental property owners to sell up, reducing the supply of rental properties - good news for renters looking to make the jump to home ownership but less so for anyone not in that position.

Shouldn't make too much of a difference? The total number of houses and households stays the same after the sale. Basically, you are right, for every such transaction you describe, one rental unit is taken off the rental market, but also one household exits the rental market, too.

[37r6r6u3u3u]

The most vulnerable (Africa) live in water starved regions that will be seeing increased rainfall.

[pinkfoot]

Nope - sub Sarahan Africa is getting drier.

[e84urjfu]

Is there a reason you feel this will hold true over time despite the region's relative proximity to Antarctica and its broad exposure to the intertropical convergence zone?

[taneq]

Also swarms of locusts. :S

[37r6r6u3u3u]

Is there a reason you feel this isn't an issue that could be attacked more efficiently either way by engaging it in the same manner that many institutions are currently engaging research research into reducing mosquito populations? Surely the west owes them that much after systematically sabotaging an entire continent. Or is it alright when it's part of the natural status quo?