[maest]

This argument is particularly pernicious as it can, in it's general form, always deflect from the issues of climate change and always focus on blaming local governments.

This is what will happen in the future btw - climate change will apply pressure via famine and droughts, but the fallout will always be attributed to the failure of local governments to correctly "manage the change".

We'll go from "climate change is a hoax" to "climate change is just a given and it's your duty to manage it".

[baxtr]

I don’t man. It sounds as if you don’t want to answer a simple question and instead like to wander into theoretical thought experiments.

The case here is very simple: invest in infrastructure for your people or invest in bombs to attack foreign states.

And you’re saying it’s climate change? I’d like to live in your world.

[gosub100]

I would say the climate change argument is particularly pernicious as its general form implies we all need to submit to more government control, we all need to feel guilt for being alive, and suffer higher prices or all sorts of market manipulation (EV rebates, "green programs", shuttering power plants) while the rich elite fly around on private jets burning hundreds of pounds of fuel per hour. While corporations simply outsource manufacturing to Asia, completely circumventing any environmental laws, cutting jobs, and burning bunker oil to move the product back here.

I don't believe a single thing they say.

[maest]

That's a false dichotomy.

"Since there are murderers out there, it is fine for me to murder/there is no point in trying to reduce murder rates."

[gosub100]

It's a false equivalency to put carbon emissions on par with any crime, much less a violent felony.