After weeks of endless speculation by observers, pundits, and politicians, President Donald Trump announced that the United States would be leaving the Paris Agreement. With this move, the ongoing climate change debate exploded. The political left erupted with intolerant rage, spreading hyperbole about the end of the world and how the Trump Administration is ushering it in.
Is the end really near?
Before this specific argument can be addressed, it is important to understand the nature of the claim. By stating that a treaty is all that stands between the Earth and the apocalypse, climate change alarmists are alleging that we need the force of government.
Is the force of government the answer to everything?
The point that many climate change alarmists miss is that it is entirely possible to support green initiatives and be opposed to government force. When people choose to recycle and use environmentally friendly products, they’re generally doing so without the barrel of a gun in their face. When businesses opt for greener policies and more efficient practices, the same is occurring.
The personal change is being made. Why? For many individuals, they realize the importance and decide to be better human beings without making sanctimonious displays. For businesses, they realize that it is good publicity. In the age of greater environmental awareness, being able to flaunt green initiatives is good business.
Why do many believe the government is central to climate change? It’s the need for a nanny state.
Over the last several decades, there has been a greater reliance among the people on government. Police officers can pull people over for choosing not to wear a seat belt and issue a hefty fine.
Climate change believers have two approaches. They can either educate respectfully and engage in civil discourse, or act like an arrogant elitist who believes the government is the only answer.
What might happen if we engage in a civil exchange of ideas? If the climate is truly being affected by humanity, people will learn. The problem with the debate is that it has become polarized by politics. Instead of being a free flow of ideas between believers and skeptics, it has become a battleground between the conservative right and liberal left. The divide has only been further poisoned by Democratic and Republican Parties who use the issue as partisan ammunition.
An open dialogue will not happen because climate change believers have opted for a more sanctimonious and arrogant strategy. Skeptics are treated like inferior minds and insulted personally. The low blows that come from alarmists are endless. Why? Simply because there is concern about the scope of government and the urgency of climate change.
It is a great insult to the country to imply that the Paris Agreement is central to improving the planet. The implication here is that without the Paris Agreement, the green agenda will fail. Little do climate alarmists realize, people and businesses can make the decision to go green without government force. Not only are they capable, many already make environmentally friendly choices without a government gun barrel looming in their presence.
Let there be a free market green revolution. Government force isn’t necessary to achieve good things.