That’s like saying poisoning is good for people because the sicker people are, the more hospitals and doctors you’ll need. The money has to come from somewhere. There is no profit in cleaning up messes, just loss reduction. The money, trillions of dollars just for climate change alone, has to come from somewhere. If past generations had not been so greedy, that money would be in our pockets. Instead, it will be burned because we have to clean up the unfathomable messes older people have created.

Sounds like the broken window fallacy: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fa...

In some cases, sure, where there is a clearly identifiable problem. But widespread pollution is particularly insidious because it can cause large amounts of people to develop serious health issues that have no clear cause and no reliable treatment.

Only on hacker news would your comment be ok and the parent is downvoted

Sure. That's great. But where are the incentives to promote this "opportunity" to those who want to do so without net loss?