I don't see anything even slightly objectionable, unless ajmurmann were throwing around billions and helping regulate to ensure continuing rising sea levels. T

I don't see anything even slightly objectionable, unless ajmurmann were throwing around billions and helping regulate to ensure continuing rising sea levels. This poster is obviously viewing it as an inevitable externality and asking how they can invest profitably. They mention investing in higher land - but since coastal properties will literally disappear underwater, there could be other ways to profit. Additionally, solar power (which might be heavily subsidized), electric cars, even something insane like fusion-powered electric airplanes (a pipe dream, it's ridiculous) would all be reasonable answers. I mention the airplane thing as jetliners are a leading cause of Co2 emissions which is thougth responsible for this rising sea level. -- as literally trillions of dollars in seaside property become uninhabitable due to flooding (literally trillions, this is not an exaggeration) society might decide to instead spend $10,000,000,000,000 (that's $10 trillion) to halt it today. It's reasonable for OP to ask how given that society will be feeling a push to spend $10,000,000,000,000 - how he/she can be better off with this analysis done today. Zero objection and there is no moral component whatsoever to their question. EDIT: I'd like someone to explain the downvoting behavior (of my comment). As multiple of my examples show, the investment can be in alternative energy, for example, when obscene expanses of valuable coastland are being flooded and people are simply 'forced' to act. I don't understand why the question or my defense of it were downvoted.