Oh, totally. And it would be fantastic if they found a way to get modernized infrastructure without making our mess worse. But a lot of that solar growth is beholden to external investors, either private equity or governments like China.
Everyone wants to do some resource exploitation in Africa, and China is no exception. Just because they have a stance of indignation over "don't do X, buy Y from me instead" doesn't mean they won't do the exact same thing with their Y.

I'm not sure on the tibet part specifically, but I've definitely heard people express environmental concerns relating to China or African nations going through industrial growth or milestones that the US and European nations went through already.

Which isn't wrong, since those milestones are what caused the ecological problems we have in the first place. It's just not going to sit well if someone says not to do what they did, and instead just buy the next iteration and be dependent.

The line between "destroying culturally significant traditions" and "but it's my house and I want better plumbing" is fuzzy.

I'm just pointing out that "what laws?” isn't how remote islands work.
If Hammond would follow up with an espionage complaint is a different question.
That being said: I always thought the reason for the isolation was to keep the dinosaurs on the island and to keep anyone from creating regulations, not to avoid any that already existed. There's nothing illegal about cloning dinosaurs.

Since it was a theme park they were opening it's not like they were planning on secrecy for much longer.

Doesn't even matter: Hammond and nedry were both US citizens, and part of the conspiracy was overtly planned in the US.
Beyond that, some of the people harmed are also US citizens.

Those reasons are sufficient alone for US jurisdiction if he came to the US or to justify an extradition request.

Finally, according to the Jurassic park fandom wiki the park was owned by a US corporation. Not mentioned in the movie but shown on computer screens and on helicopters and such.

Well, the US asserts the authority to investigate and charge crimes in international waters in certain circumstances.

They're not lawless a lawless vacuum, otherwise maritime piracy would just be a thing people let happen.

If the parties are American the US can claim jurisdiction. If it involves US assets they can. If the location is outside any nation they can.
If it's a severe crime then anyone can prosecute it. That's how piracy laws work.
Further, a nation has some degree of jurisdiction over its citizens wherever they are. Any nation has jurisdiction over its citizens, and jurisdiction over crimes committed against it's citizens. If you kill an American and then go to new York, you can totally be prosecuted by the federal government.

We also have a specific law that holds that if an American conducts economic espionage anywhere that that's in the jurisdiction of the US courts.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-104publ294/html/PLAW-104publ294.htm

This chapter also applies to conduct occurring outside the United States if-- (1) the offender is a natural person who is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States, or an organization organized under the laws of the United States or a State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) an act in furtherance of the offense was committed in the United States.

International territory doesn't mean no one has jurisdiction. It means no one has ownership or exclusive control.

Nedry would be absolutely fucked, and no nation would deny the extradition request.

The justice system should, not is but should, be in the business of making things right for people who have been wronged and rehabilitating people who have done wrong, as an extension of preventing wrong from recurring, which is itself part of making things right for those wronged.

There is some theoretical minority of people who can't be rehabilitated and don't belong in medical treatment. There are some people where putting them in a medical facility would itself be an injustice to the staff and other patients. The vast majority of people with mental illness are perfectly safe and more likely to be the victim of a crime. Mixing them with billy mcSlapChop the worst person imaginable just creates a lot of dead people with poorly managed bipolar disorder.

The vast majority of crimes can be handled by the judge finding you guilty and then just letting you go.

Heh, "here" is the US. We built roads next to nearly all of the train tracks and we don't have high speed rail.

A pretty normal arrangement:

This is what freeways look like in a lot of cities:

Either that, or elevated. When you get to the suburbs they tend to start putting up sound barriers:

You can also just be on a road so remote that it takes forever for someone to even notice you.

We have a lot of people die every year trying to walk off the highways from getting hit and, in the winter particularly, there's messaging about not leaving your car because of the danger.

As a result of all that, this is the most light-hearted way of describing how the comment landed:

Mostly I disagreed with the comparative ease you implied for mechanical troubles with cars. I've never had or heard of a tow truck getting there that fast outside of things like highway blocking accidents. Holding up the time of repairs and alternative transportation as specific downsides of trains also felt off, as did the remoteness.

https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/amtrak-passengers-stuck-for-hours-on-stranded-train-near-battle-creek/

This is a story more like what I imagine with a train breakdown. The "middle of nowhere" was a half mile from a road, ten from a city and near enough to a city that they got busses in a few hours. It's by no means nice but it's not quite "stuck in a mountain pass for the winter".
In my experience cars often go to places far more inaccessible, so it seems odd to single out trains.

To me the biggest difficulty would be the slowed information flow. When my car breaks down I know exactly how much I can do to repair it before I call or start walking. I have no idea where the mechanical assessment of the train is so I don't know when to bail.

Edit:

Oh, right: they put fences around the train tracks? They don't do that here that I've seen outside of junctions. Much bigger fences around the highways.

Ah, I see what happened. You had a point about one thing. "No ac on train bad, and if they don't let you off it's very uncomfortable".
You backed that up with a bunch of stuff that didn't make sense. People responded to that stuff, and you got pissy that no one listened to the part you cared about.

Can you see why maybe I would respond to statements about being stranded when that's most of your comment? Why an article about train congestion is confusing if your point is "stuck on train bad"?

You can't get too upset when people respond to the words that you say instead of the points you wanted them to pay attention to.

If you don't care, why are you putting so much effort into arguing it and getting so defensive?

You're acting like no one is understanding or accepting what you're saying. I responded to you saying a train malfunction leaves you stranded in the middle of nowhere for hours, and a car malfunction doesn't. Which is a a preposterous statement.
You then followed up with an article about skipping optional travel due to possible delays and capacity issues and took that as evidence that the air conditioning was the problem.

You haven't shattered my world view, you've made a shitty argument and then gotten sad when people said it was shitty.

It's not exactly irrelevant when you brought up repair time and alternative transportation.

I feel like you didn't read your own article. The AC on the train doesn't really factor into their warning.
They advised people to avoid the train to avoid congestion of the system because trains travel slower when the rails heat up.
They advised people to defer car travel because roads will be more congested due to heat causing mechanical issues in car engines. They also said if you don't have ac that it could be actively dangerous.

Listing a big list of cons for one and then saying the other one doesn't have them really makes it seem like a comparison, particularly when it doesn't seem like an equally applied standard.

They usually advise you not to get out of your car for the exact reason they advise you not to get off the train.

I'm not sure what's exclusive to trains about breaking down in the middle of nowhere. It's not exactly trivial to get a replacement car either, nor is repair somehow instant.

I get what you're saying, but it's way less one sided than you're trying to convey. My car once broke down on the freeway in a city. I had to wait more than an hour for a tow and then walk home, which took two hours. Had to get random coworkers or friends to take me to work while my car was repaired over the next two weeks.

Oh, and traffic jams are routine for cars.

Nothing is gained by pretending there's no downsides to any mode of transportation. They all have them. In aggregate though, most people would be better off if we had more available than just "car".