They have a bigger smog problem, but they are already ahead of the US in green energy production and invest much more in green energy.

I understand completly about global warming. Tons of things contribute to it including humans. My issue with this agreemenet is that it is essentially a handshake saying you will do something with no reprecussions for failing to do so. If the US took the money it is spending on the treaty and focused on reducing greenhouse gasses in the US, it would affect everyone. If the Chinese used the money they were were putting towards the agreement and used it to reduce green house gasses in its country it would affect the world etc. etc. The falacy here is saying that we need to give money to other countries because of global warming. If an Island sinks under sea level then help the people of said island relocate. I am tired of paying for other countries people out of my pocket when people in my own country are suffering. At what point do other countries start taking responsability for themselves? We dont need some new law or some new agreement with a fund to stop or slow global warming. 

Regardless of if we are conscious of the phenomen or not, without an agreement of any kind, stated or not, it will always be more logical to act against the collective wellbeing. Rellying on the good will of individuals is a catastrophe bound to happen (as the heavy fall of productivity in all attempted communist states has proven.) 

I do not necessarily see the Paris Agreement, or anything similar, as being against libertarian principles. It is simply a collective aknowledgment that it would be in the interest of all if all participated. Each party has the power to break the agreement for all, but the nash equilibrium, with rational players, makes each member continue participating. Trump at least somewhat destabilized this equilibrium, which could lead other "players" to go back to their direct individual interests, instead of making agreements with others

Of course, in practice, people aren't rational, which makes game theory a much, much harder subject. The math is pretty beautiful, though.

In the end, I will always fundementaly be in disagreement with Libertarians; as I do not consider Liberty to be a fundemental part of morality, but mearly a tool. I believe in capitalism, and more specifically, in competition, as it does follow a sound mathematical model; however, it is also mathematicaly unquestionable that there are several instances where limiting the choices of individuals does bring to a greater collctive productivity/happiness. 

I believe that this gives the right to breach the liberty of individuals; but I respect that some could disagree with that.

As long as Trump continues to make decisions that a whole lot of us heavily disagrees with and keeps that terrible attitude of his then we'll continue to oppose and complain. That's just something you'll have to deal with. And if you don't like it when people express opinions that differs from yours you do have the option to hide political topics.

The french President just ripped trump  a new one.