Exhibit A: people who profit from environmental disaster, seeing in it what John Oliver has called a "catastrotunity," should be stripped of their assets and expelled from human society. Exhibit B: the next five years would be a good time to buy property somewhere that will be habitable when the atmospheric temperature breaks the 3.6 degrees farenheit threshold that scientists say is both probably inevitable and certainly disastrous.

Dilemma: would it be unethical to buy property in a place in part because you think the value of that property will rise as a result of climate change and ecological catastrophe? Probably not, provided that it isn't accompanied by preventing anti-climate change measures for the sake of that profit. Among the most heinous things I can basically guarantee about the next twenty-five years is that those who are now stringently denying the existence of climate change will turn around and profit immensely from the land-rent speculation when we start to see the effects in more of the United States.

But dragging the covered wagon over to somewhere that won't be ruined by flood or drought? That just seems like good sense. If I disappear one day, look for me north of the 42nd parallel.