The argument being made there is that the Paris Accord doesn't go far enough. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't give it our best shot. We have to remember that the Paris Accord is basically the minimum that we should strive for and that we have to keep in mind the politics -- if we push too hard then people may just give up.
Can you unpack that a bit?
I’d argue a fake solution like the the Paris Accord is actively harmful.
It’s the equivalent of banning the use of guns for 4 hours on a Tuesday morning punishable by a $100 fine and thinking that it’s going to help reduce gun violence.
At best it will convince people you have no clue and can be safely ignored.
If this was a business setting, a proposal like this would be laughed out of existence. Somehow, when it is a Dem/progressive policy people still take it seriously.
Did I induce cognitive dissonance in you?
You repeated them. Do you agree with them?
> Did I induce cognitive dissonance in you?
Nope.