So...whatever reason he gives is irrelevant as far as I am concerned because using the UN's own climate prediction model this accord won't do a god damn thing. It will cost $100 trillion dollars to implement and reduce the temperature potentially by 3/10 of a degree by 2100. It will achieve less than 1% of it's targeted temperatures. Yeah, this is totally about saving the planet. This totally unbinding, unenforceable mandate is gonna save the world. The accord is about kicking the can down the road and getting some goodies in the here and now. Much like unfunded liabilities, "Let the future pay for it...I'll be out of office and dead by the time they have to deal with it." It's one of the most expensive treaties in the history of the world and what do people get for it? Nothing. And let's just say that the US did everything right and did everything it said it would. It would postpone the global warming/climate change by 8 months. Even James Hansen the former NASA scientist and a father of global warming who is by no means a "denier" said the accord was complete bullshit and that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest to be burned they will be burned. The thing is we get better and better at using fossil fuels more efficiently and more cleanly. Plus we keep finding massive oil reserves. There was a massive one found in Texas (largest ever in the US I think) and another in Alaska. But you know about that $100 billion a year green climate fund that US taxpayers are supposed to fund? It's just a giant money transfer to third world countries. Foreign aid is basically transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Ever wonder why that with all the money that the US (and other countries) throws at foreign aid nothing changes? Things seem to get worse. One reason is that it has the same basic problems of mass wealth redistribution that throwing money at the problem doesn't fix it. People in third world countries have a ton of kids. They get more money and the only thing seems to go up is the amount of kids they have thus creating more mouths to feed and thus requiring more aid.Their leaders are very aware of this and that's a gravy train they want to keep coming. However, partly due to the European migrant crisis and all that, foreign aid has taken a bit of a hit in terms of public relations (because its effects are currently spilling over into Europe) but hey...let's re-brand it under the guise of "climate change". If you're on the list of countries set up to receive some of that 100 billion then climate change and the US staying in the accord is the most important thing in the world to you. It's no different from Trump trying to mask a ...$300 billion arms sales deal with Saudis under some guise of the founding of some terrorist fighting coalition...meanwhile Saudi Arabia is known for funding terrorist. He couldn't just come out and say, "We're selling weapons to the Saudis." he had to mask it under some Middle East trip. The alarmism is designed to provoke anxiety. "THE SKY IS FALLING! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! SO PAY US AND WE'LL RELIEVE IT FOR YOU WITH OUR MAGIC WORDS!" not totally unlike the clergy back in the day telling you that you sinned and that they were the only ones who could speak to God in order to relieve you of your sins. So you needed to give them money, they say a bunch of words, tell you do 1000 hail Marys and send you on your way having reduced your anxiety but not actually having done anything. The goal here being more state control over you and your life. And by goal I'm looking further into the future, in terms of where they want to go with this accord being a jump off point. Not that they are going to achieve ultimate control with this accord.Look at how the European countries are reacting to this pull out. They really just want to bind countries to some eventual world government bullshit where people oceans away can decide what's good for you living in Oklahoma or New York or Canada. They're used to it in a way with the EU. Now what could be done to improve the environment and reduce things like emissions? Well you could: 1. Keep manufacturing in 1st world countries where we're just better at doing it in environmentally safe ways. Not just because of technology but because culturally we tend to care about it a lot more. Polluting rivers and killing animals and people due to bad practices tends to be looked down on. As opposed to say in China where they are much less likely to give a shit. Creating an incentive to keep manufacturing in 1st world countries would require a significant amount of deregulation and taxation reducing (and no the quality control and cultural distaste for destroying the environment won't just fly out the window if regulations are reduced). It is a whole lot easier to keep an eye on them when they are right in your own country. 2. Drill locally. It would reduce the need to send oil on gigantic freighters that leak, fall apart and require a significant amount of energy to use. Reduces the amounts of ships going all over the world to deliver this stuff. You also reduce the money you're sending to Middle Eastern dictators that aren't exactly known for their human rights let alone environmental. 3. Reduce government spending. Just like anything else, every dollar you spend is going to consume a resource somewhere. Welp, when your government is spending money it doesn't have like candy and racking up massive debts it can't pay back it is consuming a significant amount of resources today that means less for the future. Remember, governments don't create anything. They aren't like private organizations that are putting money towards new energy techniques or renewable energies that are creating new things and providing value that can benefit the future. Governments simply consume. They "create" by confiscating wealth. Things within countries can be done to improve the environment but they typically require doing things that reduce the gravy train to government. I'm all for research and development for cleaner energy but it isn't going to come from government. It isn't going to come from state control over people's lives. It most definitely isn't going to come from this big push for what seems to be inching closer and closer to some ridiculous "world government" model. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity which is the only way to achieve what alarmist want because currently renewable energy doesn't stand enough on it's own two feet. This isn't to say that it won't in the future but right now it requires significant government help to work. Yes, fossil fuel companies receive subsidies too (which I am against) but fossil fuels are also tied into EVERYTHING we use and do. Like I keep saying, get out of the way and let the creators create. Let the innovators innovate. Maybe if more people focused on doing these things instead of lobbying the government for how they can push their own agenda we'd have way more reliable renewable energy. For fuck's sake people, just handle your business and figure out how to get your shit done without trying to control everyone's lives. Make your case, approach private investors and tell them what you're doing, give them your research and make your fucking case for why this is important and why you need funding. Stop trying to use the hammer of the government. Yeah, that means it may take a while to get your goal and you'll likely get rejected a bunch too but keep on trucking. Bill Gates is trying that with the Breakthrough Coalition. But you guys know me and my views. You're never going to get me to surrender on my desire for less government action.