this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
87 points (87.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7192 readers
1 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The constitution also doesn't deny the right to a stable climate, if that is what you mean.

It just has nothing to do with it.

[–] datszechuansauce 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Justify the existence of national parks then

[–] AnonTwo@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not sure why you're here 4 days later...but nothing in the constitution says they can't have national parks.

Again, the issue is just it has nothing to do with it. There's easily other avenues to go about than the constitution.

[–] datszechuansauce 1 points 2 years ago

Why are you here? And if nothing in the constitution says we can't have national parks, nothing in it says we can't regulate a stable climate.

I don't even really disagree with you that there are better ways to go about it. It's just stupid to agree with their claim.

[–] shreddy_scientist@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Your right, but this needs to change. In order to stop Billionaires from ensuring there isn't a single functional ecosystem, legal actions will be necessary.