# Is the paris accord really unfair to the USA
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 2, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929 "2017-06-02T14:39:33Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/1 "2017-06-02T14:39:33Z")
According to Trump: Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord)
Is this true or just more bullshit?
Is he talking about former USSR eastern European states or are we being put at a disadvantage relative to fully industrialized western European states.
I realize this is a general question but its about trump so…
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/2 "2017-06-02T14:55:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> According to Trump: Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.
>
> [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord)
>
> Is this true or just more bullshit?
>
> Is he talking about former USSR eastern European states or are we being put at a disadvantage relative to fully industrialized western European states.
>
> I realize this is a general question but its about trump so…
Bullshit in 3 fronts.
1. Coal plants are not forbidden at this stage, they just need to be accounted for in the total amount of CO2 they emit and [in Europe they expect to stop making new ones in 2020.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/05/the-end-of-coal-eu-energy-companies-pledge-no-new-plants-from-2020)
2. Coal plants are also not forbidden in the USA, what is happening is what even the conservatives at [Reason magazine noted](http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-killed-off-coal-minin), natural gas and other alternative fuels are cheaper or getting cheaper than coal. A lot of the closing of coal plants and mines in the USA took place before any new regulations were in place.
3. As noted then, any growth that will take place now with coal plants/mines will be thanks to “choosing winners and losers” with a lot of subsidies. An issue that was supposed to be a very evil one to consider among conservatives themselves.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/3 "2017-06-02T15:06:14Z")
Was just reading [this](http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/02/politics/trump-paris-climate/index.html) on CNN, and it’s along a similar vein wrt how Trump views things.
> [@](#):
>
> And there’s another piece to Trumpism evident in this climate decision: A deep cynicism and suspicion about the rest of the world and its views of the United States.
>
> To Trump, the world community is driven, at least in part, by a desire to draw the US into deals like Paris to hobble us economically.
>
> “The fact that the Paris deal hamstrings the United States, while empowering some of the world’s top polluting countries, should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement: It’s to give their country an economic edge over the United States,” Trump said in his speech.
>
> It’s not only that we are being taken advantage of by the rest of the world, according to Trump. It’s that other countries are openly mocking us.
> [@](#):
>
> “At what point does America get demeaned?,” Trump asked in his speech Thursday. “At what point do they start laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. We don’t want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore. And they won’t be. They won’t be.”
>
> Add it all up and here’s what you get: Trumpism is an anti-elite, anti-PC, anti-insider nationalistic worldview propped up by insecurity and a strong sense of suspicion toward the rest of the world.
>
> It is an assumption that the post-World War II alliances we have held with Europe have, almost unfailingly, been unfair to us. That the rest of the world has taken advantage. That they have used our goodwill for bad purposes. That they have smiled at us in public and sneered at us in private.
>
> No more, Trump promises – and with his decision on Paris he sends a very clear signal that he means it.
>
> We are in different times now. The Trump worldview is a clear break from what we’ve known since the end of World War II. The question now is how the rest of the world reacts to Donald Trump’s re-imagining of America’s role in it.
This is how Trump actually views things like this. He believes this…stuff. While I think there are grains of truth in some of it, overall I think Trump is a nut. Every day it just seems to get more disturbing. I used to laugh at comparisons between Trump and, say, Mussolini or Franco, but…well, I don’t laugh nearly as hard now, let’s say…
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/4 "2017-06-02T15:22:49Z")
Leaving aside the facts that there are no enforcement or penalties in the Paris agreement that can be used to punish countries that don’t comply (including the US). Leaving aside that the funds to assist third world nations in achieving lower carbon emissions goals are also voluntary. Leaving aside the fact that the incompetent orange buffoon didn’t need to bail on the agreement in order to “re-negotiate a better deal”.
What’s worth reminding the orange buffoon and his slavishly adoring minions is that having the US lead the world by example is good for the US economy because we can develop renewable energy and related technology before the rest of the world can, and then sell that technology to the rest of the world. That’s jobs! That’s economy! That’s the future! That’s putting “America First!” in terms even the orange minion should be able to understand.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/5 "2017-06-02T15:40:30Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#):
>
> According to Trump: Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.
>
> [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord)
>
> Is this true or just more bullshit?
>
> Is he talking about former USSR eastern European states or are we being put at a disadvantage relative to fully industrialized western European states.
>
> I realize this is a general question but its about trump so…
I think the meat of the factual claims you are questioning are here:
> [@](#):
>
> Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs – not what we need – believe me, this is not what we need – including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely. They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.
>
> According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal – and I happen to love the coal miners – down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.
>
> Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States – which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.
>
> For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years – 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. There are many other examples. But the bottom line is that the Paris Accord is very unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.
Enumerating the claims:
[ol]
[li]Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.[/li][li]compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal … down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. [/li][li]The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income [/li][li]under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years – 13.[/li][li]India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.[/li][/ol]
Those seem like factual items that can be either true or false - they appear true to me.
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/6 "2017-06-02T15:49:11Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> Enumerating the claims:
> [ol]
> [li]Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.[/li][li]compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal … down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. [/li][li]The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income [/li][li]under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years – 13.[/li][li]India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.[/li][/ol]
> Those seem like factual items that can be either true or false - they appear true to me.
Why do they appear true to you? Because there is evidence that they are true, or because they could potentially be true if we all work hard enough to reach those objectives?
---
### Author:  [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/7 "2017-06-02T15:59:12Z")
> [@XT](#):
>
> [QUOTE=CNN]
> It’s not only that we are being taken advantage of by the rest of the world, according to Trump. It’s that other countries are openly mocking us.
[/quote]
Heaven forfend ! Well, they’re gonna not be laughing at the Land O’Trump now.
> [@](#):
>
> Every day it just seems to get more disturbing. I used to laugh at comparisons between Trump and, say, Mussolini or Franco, but…well, I don’t laugh nearly as hard now, let’s say…
Ridiculous comparison: Mussolini and Franco were exceptionally competent men.
---
### Author:  [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/8 "2017-06-02T16:09:19Z")
The study that is the basis for those claims is highly suspect. I encourage you to click through the links in point #3 of this [post](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/2/15727984/deceptions-trump-paris-speech).
Here’s a [taste](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-high_fc-trumpspeech-810pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.537400b7acd6):
> [@](#):
>
> Moreover, the study did not consider possible benefits from reducing climate change. A footnote says: The study “does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions. … The model does not take into consideration yet-to-be developed technologies that might influence the long-term cost.”
>
> Trump also cited the impact by 2040, including a “cost to the economy” of nearly $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product. But in addition to an unrealistic scenario, that number must be viewed in context over more than two decades, so “$3 trillion” amounts to a reduction of 6 percent. The study concludes coal usage would almost disappear, but innovation in clean energy sources would slow considerably, which also raises the cost of complying with the commitments.
>
> Environmentalists say greater investment in clean energy will lower costs and spur innovation. That may not be correct either, but it demonstrates how the outcomes in models of economic activity decades from now depend on the assumptions.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/9 "2017-06-02T16:32:14Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#):
>
> Why do they appear true to you? Because there is evidence that they are true, or because they could potentially be true if we all work hard enough to reach those objectives?
[ol]
[li]The NERA conducted an analysis which is available and while it has detractors and apparent flaws, as a factual matter it says what it says and that was the claim. The claim was not about the quality of the NERA information.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]China’s self imposed commitment has a target of 2030 - that’s 13 years. If there were milestones with gradual targets then this wouldn’t be supportable, but given there are not, this is a truthful statement, though it lacks any nuance.[/li][li]This is a yes or a no, is India making its participation contingent and from my reading the answer is yes.[/li][/ol]
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/10 "2017-06-02T16:38:03Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> Those seem like factual items that can be either true or false - they appear true to me.
Of course they appear to be true. That’s what you pay a company like National Economic Research Associates for; the appearance of truth.
---
### Author:  [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/11 "2017-06-02T16:51:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Of course they appear to be true. That’s what you pay a company like National Economic Research Associates for; the appearance of truth.
Its always more effective to attack the arguer rather than the argument.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/12 "2017-06-02T16:53:38Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#):
>
> Leaving aside the facts that there are no enforcement or penalties in the Paris agreement that can be used to punish countries that don’t comply (including the US). Leaving aside that the funds to assist third world nations in achieving lower carbon emissions goals are also voluntary. Leaving aside the fact that the incompetent orange buffoon didn’t need to bail on the agreement in order to “re-negotiate a better deal”.
>
> What’s worth reminding the orange buffoon and his slavishly adoring minions is that having the US lead the world by example is good for the US economy because we can develop renewable energy and related technology before the rest of the world can, and then sell that technology to the rest of the world. That’s jobs! That’s economy! That’s the future! That’s putting “America First!” in terms even the orange minion should be able to understand.
If Trump decided to go along with the agreement and then used the fact that nothing was binding in order to do what he believes is beneficial and “fair” for the the U.S., would’t he still be subject to the same level of vitriol and outrage? I’m just looking at it in terms of pure political strategy; politically it doesn’t seem to be in Trump’s interest to sign the agreement and then not follow through by claiming it is unenforceable. He would lose popularity with his base and would not gain any followers. Bailing on the agreement seems to be the best political strategy for him.
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/13 "2017-06-02T16:53:57Z")
[quote=“Bone, post:9, topic:787929”]
[ol]
[li]The NERA conducted an analysis which is available and while it has detractors and apparent flaws, as a factual matter it says what it says and that was the claim. The claim was not about the quality of the NERA information.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]This flows from #1. [/ol][/li][/quote]
Consistency of argument does not improve its underlying (in)credibility.
> [@Bone](#):
>
> [ol]
> [li]China’s self imposed commitment has a target of 2030 - that’s 13 years. If there were milestones with gradual targets then this wouldn’t be supportable, but given there are not, this is a truthful statement, though it lacks any nuance.[/li][li]This is a yes or a no, is India making its participation contingent and from my reading the answer is yes.[/li][/ol]
The agreement is not perfect. Far from it. But withdrawal does nothing to improve it. Staying in and negotiating improved outcome would have been the more prudent approach.
p.s. I hate lists. 😛
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/14 "2017-06-02T16:58:23Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#):
>
> Consistency of argument does not improve its underlying (in)credibility.
>
> The agreement is not perfect. Far from it. But withdrawal does nothing to improve it. Staying in and negotiating improved outcome would have been the more prudent approach.
>
> p.s. I hate lists. 😛
Is it true that the European leaders refused to negotiate, or did Trump refuse?
---
### Author:  [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/15 "2017-06-02T17:00:34Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#):
>
> Consistency of argument does not improve its underlying (in)credibility.
>
> The agreement is not perfect. Far from it. But withdrawal does nothing to improve it. Staying in and negotiating improved outcome would have been the more prudent approach.
>
> p.s. I hate lists. 😛
Forgive me if Im wrong, but isnt that Trumps goal? Renegotiation?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/16 "2017-06-02T17:01:38Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> [ol]
> [li]The NERA conducted an analysis which is available and while it has detractors and apparent flaws, as a factual matter it says what it says and that was the claim. The claim was not about the quality of the NERA information.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]This flows from #1.[/li][li]China’s self imposed commitment has a target of 2030 - that’s 13 years. If there were milestones with gradual targets then this wouldn’t be supportable, but given there are not, this is a truthful statement, though it lacks any nuance.[/li][li]This is a yes or a no, is India making its participation contingent and from my reading the answer is yes.[/li][/ol]
> [@Little\_Nemo](#):
>
> Of course they appear to be true. That’s what you pay a company like National Economic Research Associates for; the appearance of truth.
> [@madsircool](#):
>
> Its always more effective to attack the arguer rather than the argument.
Problem is that the argument had already been countered.
> **[It's Trump against the world — and the President likes it that way](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/it-s-trump-against-world-president-likes-it-way-n767506)**
>
> First Read is your briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day's most important political stories and why they matter.
> [@](#):
>
> CLAIM: “Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.”
> IN FACT, per the New York Times: “Critics dispute the methodology of that study, by the National Economic Research Associates. They note that it was conducted for the American Council for Capital Formation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — both vocal opponents of climate regulations. Economists argue that **the projected job losses in the study assume the American economy will not use innovation to adapt to the new regulations.** ”
As [Esquire magazine](http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55426/trump-pull-out-paris-climate-accords/) put it:
Trump “read off a fanciful list of “consequences” for adhering to the Paris Accords down through the next decades. Afterwards, Ali Velshi, a welcome addition to the MSNBC cast of regulars, pointed out that the president\* was reading from a debunked report that presumed in its analysis that the U.S. would fulfill every one of its agreed-upon conditions while no other participating country would fulfill any of theirs. This is not surprising. The president\* would have read a commercial for hair-replacement if someone had put it in front of him.”
---
### Author:  [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/17 "2017-06-02T17:07:07Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#):
>
> Is it true that the European leaders refused to negotiate, or did Trump refuse?
> [@madsircool](#):
>
> Forgive me if Im wrong, but isnt that Trumps goal? Renegotiation?
I think you’ve both asking essentially the same question.
I think Trump was butt-hurt after the cool reception he received at the G7 summit and this is his childish way of giving them the finger.
He has no intentions of negotiating anything anew. My cite is that he’s proven himself over and over to be a pathological liar and intellectually lacking in any capacity other than to act out of any other motivation than animus or self-interest.
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/18 "2017-06-02T17:09:20Z")
> [@Bone](#):
>
> I think the meat of the factual claims you are questioning are here:
>
> Enumerating the claims:
> [ol]
> [li]Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.[/li][li]compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal … down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. [/li][li]The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income [/li][li]under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years – 13.[/li][li]India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.[/li][/ol]
> Those seem like factual items that can be either true or false - they appear true to me.
So do other Indusrtialized countries get an edge on us or does the Paris accord treat us the same as France and Germany?
---
### Author:  [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/19 "2017-06-02T17:10:21Z")
[quote=“Bone, post:9, topic:787929”]
[LIST=1]
[li]The NERA conducted an analysis which is available and while it has detractors and apparent flaws, as a factual matter it says what it says and that was the claim. The claim was not about the quality of the NERA information.[/li][/quote]
Maybe not YOUR claim but Trump presents NERA’s conclusions as facts.
---
### Author:  [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)
#### Post date: [June 2, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929/20 "2017-06-02T17:22:27Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#):
>
> If Trump decided to go along with the agreement and then used the fact that nothing was binding in order to do what he believes is beneficial and “fair” for the the U.S., would’t he still be subject to the same level of vitriol and outrage? I’m just looking at it in terms of pure political strategy; politically it doesn’t seem to be in Trump’s interest to sign the agreement and then not follow through by claiming it is unenforceable. He would lose popularity with his base and would not gain any followers. Bailing on the agreement seems to be the best political strategy for him.
My guess is that he wouldn’t be subject to the same vitriol and outrage, because keeping the US in at least sends a signal that the US accepts the science and thinks it’s an important goal to work toward. Instead, he made the US one-of-a-kind, but not in a good way.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-paris-accord-really-unfair-to-the-usa/787929.md?page=2)