With the exception of children, lunatics, and the cognitively disadvantaged, even most of those who believe that the climate is getting significantly warmer, that this is bad thing, and that human productivity is causing it know better than to think anything government can do short of forcing us back into the Stone Age will have a significant effect on the temperature. What then is the point? This is:
At an event to unveil a new United Nations report on the effect of climate change on global food and agriculture, an activist said on Wednesday that while some changes needed to be done voluntarily, government regulations will “force us to do things.”
So says Miguel Garcia-Winder, a representative to the U.S. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture, addressing the question of whether efforts to supposedly regulate the ever-fluctuating climate will be voluntary or coercive.
Of course they will be increasingly coercive. As with all things leftist, coercion for its own sake is the ultimate point.
The Paris climate change agreement passed by the U.N. last year, with the Obama administration signing on, pledges to cut emissions between 26 and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025, according to Scientific American.
The cost of making that happen would be economically crippling, and would hit the poor the hardest. The odds of it having any measurable much less beneficial effect on the weather are about the same as if we tried to control the temperature by shaking a bone at the sun.
On a tip from Torcer.