Sri Lanka's tragedy is a classic example of a supposedly “green” policy achieving very little—beyond human suffering.
Central planning has never really worked particularly well in the long term. Sure, it can accomplish some impressive things if you don't care about future consequences. No doubt the same is true when it comes to climate change.
Climate change alarmists like to point to the science. However, they only like to do so in the most narrow sense possible, looking at only specific parts that support their views. It's easy to say the world is getting warmer. It's harder to come up with exact numbers (accurate ones anyway) and attribute causes. And it's even harder to come up with scientific valid solutions. In fact, it's impossible when you don't try. Then when you don't look at the other consequences of those solutions, things are even worse. Criminal even.
And this is the situation Sri Lanka finds itself in today. It's a little hard to be concerned with global warming if the solution is going to starve you to death. "Solutions" can in fact be worse than the problem you are trying to solve. There are many examples of this. Is Lithium mining on a far greater scale an acceptable trade-off for burning less gasoline? If you never look at the short and long term consequences of it then of course it is. Otherwise, there are some hard questions to answer. Is mass starvation preferable to the climate warming a degree or two? That's if these solutions even have the effect desired. I guess if you aren't the one starving it's no big deal...