The paris agreement isn't really binding. There are no mechanism to punish non-compliance and the aims and means of limiting global warming are poorly defined in any case. The only real consequence of failing paris is looking bad. Boohoo. The WTO treaty however does have concrete punishments if one country disobeys, e.g. import duties may be imposed. Air traffic agreements are based on mutuality, so if you tax jet fuel, the other side will as well, at best. At worst, the other side will abandon the agreement and you cannot fly anywhere anymore, except within your own borders and international waters. So you can guess which one takes precedence if push comes to shove.
Also, the paris agreement doesn't really limit emissions beyond the industrialized countries. Most of the world isn't limited at all, or just very very generously.
And yes, the US is an obstacle. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the world will feel obliged to fulfil the paris agreement, prior agreements on this topic have never really been obeyed. I guess the US just has a culture of not entering agreements they don't intend to obey, whereas others sign and then wait&see.
And about the false dichotomy: yes, maybe. But since climate change advocacy is getting increasingly shrill (justifiably or not), e.g. by changing global warming to global heating, climate change to climate catastrophe, declaring it a danger to human survival, either the problem is overstated or a really big one. Leading to the aforementioned dichotomy.
On the other hand, I guess we would all be well-served by more objectivity and less hype.
Also, the paris agreement doesn't really limit emissions beyond the industrialized countries. Most of the world isn't limited at all, or just very very generously.
And yes, the US is an obstacle. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the world will feel obliged to fulfil the paris agreement, prior agreements on this topic have never really been obeyed. I guess the US just has a culture of not entering agreements they don't intend to obey, whereas others sign and then wait&see.
And about the false dichotomy: yes, maybe. But since climate change advocacy is getting increasingly shrill (justifiably or not), e.g. by changing global warming to global heating, climate change to climate catastrophe, declaring it a danger to human survival, either the problem is overstated or a really big one. Leading to the aforementioned dichotomy.
On the other hand, I guess we would all be well-served by more objectivity and less hype.