IkePoR said:
Sounds like the Skittles analogy. It's bad, we don't know how bad, but let's take the chance. |
Personally I think we should be proactive in trying to solve the problem even if our solutions are not full-proof - I want people to recognize that, the solutions we propose are not scientifically as sound as the fact of climate change itself.
There is legitimate criticism of the Agreement's efficacy etc.
The next big beef I have which I didn't discuss in the OP is that the government can only affect the very same things that individuals(all 8 billion of us) can. This international-governance known as the Paris Climate Treaty wants its aprticipating governments to regulate markets that affect pollution(gas, plastic, oil, energy, etc.), but they don't have to if individuals themselves would already do it.
The fact is people don't prioritize the environment as much as they want their governments to. That's a form of cognitive dissonance imo since the government is supposed to reflect the intentions of the people. How many people put significant time into researching how their daily and yearly lifestyle choices affect the environment? You can buy another car, you can ask the Starbucks Barista which trash should go where, you can take public transportation...we can do a lot of things, but we don't. But now we want governments to...
