Sure. But usually when I don’t know something, I ask. You stated that “we haven’t heard much of the horrendous flooded islands” as if it was a fact, then proceeded to construct an argument based on that inaccurate information.
I might have made that one up, because I can’t find it now. I remember reading a story about an island that’s part of a larger “island country,” but the island was populated by an ethnic group that’s different from ethnic groups that populate other islands. That made it a nation-island in my mind. I think Micronesia fits this description.
The case in Florida is directly related to rising ocean levels. The other cases are related to heavier rains and inadequate levees, so a 500-year-flood hits two years in a row. These may also be explained by global warming.
You have got to stop saying that as if it has some special meaning. Cities are run by Democrats because cities are populated by Democrats. People who live in higher density areas tend to be more liberal (the reasons for this are out of scope for this thread). I’m pretty sure most cities in the USA lean blue, even in red states.
Further, in terms of environmental regulations California has done a good job IMO. The air in LA is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago, even though the population and the number of cars on the road is much higher. I think the streets are similarly much safer than they were 20 or 30 years ago. But even this might have less to do with what party runs it and more with other economic and demographic factors that should be left to economists to argue.
I think the blanket “look at the cities that have been run by Democrats” argument is a false narrative.