Want to get serious about the climate?

About President Donald Trump's decision to back out of the Paris climate accord:

It's true, as Jonathan Last explained in the Weekly Standard, "people seem to have forgotten that — aside from the foundational question of balancing carbon emissions, conservation, and economic development" — the agreement was totally voluntary and also completely toothless.

"It allowed countries to set their own goals and then ostentatiously provided no consequences for countries which then failed to meet them," Last wrote.

That means countries that meet or exceed their emission reduction goals lose out to those that don't, and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

Still, Last argues, exiting the agreement in some ways actually contributes to its legitimacy, when the arrangement (made by the Obama administration) is not even a legally binding treaty.

Indeed, the agreement was carefully constructed to avoid congressional approval because its architects knew it would never have survived the Senate.

So they devised a plan to "name and shame" countries into cutting emissions through political pressure.

That's just what happens, said the Federalist's Mary Katherine Ham, when you build a legacy "with a phone and a pen."

That said, Trump could have elected to take the agreement to Congress and forced Democratic senators in the states he won to take a difficult vote before the midterms.

Instead, he chose to satisfy his campaign promise, mollify the most rabid segment of his base and, let's face it, antagonize his detractors more than a little bit.

Perhaps this is not so perplexing given his actions as president thus far.

What is truly baffling, though, is the reaction to Trump's decision by some on the political left.

Last called the phenomenon "virtue signaling about virtue signaling," which seemed like an accurate description of the social-media meltdown.

To be fair, Trump also received criticism from many in the business community, and his action was even rebuked by former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Here's the thing, though. Many Americans (especially those active on Twitter) feel they are contributing significantly to the cause of fighting climate change — by overreacting on the internet, buying a hybrid car or supporting unenforceable international accords.

But most are unwilling to make the kind of sacrifices that, if made collectively, would have a more significant effect on pollution reduction.

Megan McArdle made this point in a column some years back, writing how controlling carbon emissions will require significant sacrifice from everyone — and not "I drive a hybrid car and make my own compost" kind of discomfort.

We love our meat and fresh veggies, but ignore that the agriculture industry makes a very sizable contribution to carbon emissions. It's doubtful, en masse, we will begin hunting, gathering and planting backyard gardens, eating less varied, lower-quality food or simply reducing our food consumption.

McArdle points out that lots of energy is spent today on machines (dishwashers, washing machines, dryers — even energy-efficient ones) that do the manual labor once performed by women in the home. But who's willing to turn back the clock on feminism?

And forget long-distance driving and air travel. If we can't walk or take public transport, we shouldn't go.

It's easy to howl about Paris. It's much harder to accept the reality that our current standards of living would have to drastically change to make any kind of significant difference in carbon emissions.