You are just echoing the politician's syllogism: we must do something, this is something, we must do this.
Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.
Your point that we could not get anything better is not an excuse for doing something bad.
A major economic and ecological policy agreed on by nearly the entire planet is no small task. It took years to create and is a compromise - we can do better and that was the plan, to iterate on it.
Even with business as usual emissions, China's per capita GDP will maybe be half of what the US's will be in 35 years. I doubt climate mitigation policies would chip away at much of that difference.
The point of this is to achieve reasonable outcomes, while also allowing developing countries to grow reasonably (and live another billion out of poverty) while helping them with it.
If the developed worlds can't afford another $100b, I really don't know what to say? Especially considering a lot of that comes around to contracts and exported goods from the very same developed countries! They're not about to start printing solar cells in a country that is barely feeding itself!
As for "fly over country"... I really dont know what to say here. The world doesn't work like the simplistic metaphors that are being peddled to them. For example, the 'government budget is like a family budget' is a nonsensical analogy that is false. Or comparing government debt to credit card debt. These analogies stand in to trick the casual reader in to certain points of view (anti tax and anti government spending ones as it turns out).
What to do about this? Well, honestly, outlawing Fox News would probably be a good start.
That little figure happens to be kinda important. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and state that most people consider their quality of life to be somewhat more important than abstract ideas about global economic policy.
"Fairness" had nothing to do with how we got here. Or, to flip it around, why would any country (let alone the ones the U.S. has abused for various reasons, artificially retarding their growth) agree to a model that dooms their citizens to a pre-industrial life?
This is no different than the arguments for flat taxes because progressive income tax is "unfair".
If you approach this sort of global negotiation with a precondition that it not alter the existing economic order, that is the same as refusing to negotiate. If that's your view, then fine; there's clearly no point in discussing further.
But if the goal is to deal honestly with climate change, the reality is that there will be winners and losers. Just like happened in the run-up to where we are now. Guess what: we won the run up. Now we have to decide if we're willing to give up some of the "unfair" share we've had for almost a century in return for our grandkids having something vaguely like the quality of life our parents had.
Some days I really think the U.S. is just doomed by our culture. Thankfully, I'm more chipper other days.
So your final analysis is to tear up the Bill of Rights?
Trump said: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. president, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"
Look, it was a joke. You're expected to like winning.
I suppose you could move elsewhere on the non-level playing field if you actually don't like winning. You'd have to make some major lifestyle changes. I bet you do like winning.
We're all losing. Already.
These states will turn blue if federal policies harm them. Farms barely surviving put 5 wind turbines on their land and make 50k a year for 30 years. Counties with nothing going for them happen to have the best Wind in the world.
I could throw out statistic too.
> Seven out of 10 Americans support remaining in the agreement, according to a national poll conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/05/most-ame...
That (b) is what happened. That means Trump doesn't think something must be done - which means this administration does not care about climate science and it's predicted (and proven with current findings) disastrous impacts.
There is no alternative - either we begin to fix the problem with a global framework, or we suffer the tragedy of the commons on a global scale - and we're already seeing the effects of global temperature warming and ocean acidification.
Do not let perfect be the enemy of the future of this earth.