“Youdismissed option 2 my serious one. That option accommodates free enterprise and is inclusive.
Why did you dismiss it of hand?”
I did not dismiss it out of hand. I responded to it.
(Why did you not read my post properly, is the real question).
But, to remove any doubt, I’ll repeat my response below:
“What stops such a fund being established today?
Or are you suggesting that investment in such a fund be made compulsory (which is then not really an investment; rather, it is nothing other than a tax).”
“The world's wealthiest have most to lose and its a no-brainer”
I’m not sure what the basis of that sweeping assertion is, but I’ll indulge you for a moment and assuming it is true [*].
If it is such a no-brainer, then why - I wonder - haven’t the worlds’s wealthiest been rushing to invest in such a great idea, given that wealthy people became that way because, generally, they are literate, numerate and overall pretty smart when it comes to allocating their capital prudently and judiciously?
[*] I think it stands to reason that if the climate catastrophe, for which you are a would-be harbinger, transpires then it will be the world’s poor that will be most impacted. But that’s a discussion for a seperate occasion.
