We're going to have to disagree on this 100-Billion aspect. This nugget has been addressed and mentioned repeatedly in almost all artices regarding this issue. The last articled I linked was quite anti-Trump but I listed it because it had the 6/3billion nugget. Also, I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion - it's for the US as a "goal" with the minimum being 3 billion of which the US is paying 6 billion. That's how I see it now after repeated inevistigation.

Agreed that action and planning can take place withou 100-percent, but I still firmly stand that these climate issues are so complex and deep-rooted in nature that we can't simply say things like "we are 90& certain of xyz". Anyways, Trump's common strain among all his decisions is less reliance on government - without this loss of responsibility there is no incentive for individuals or individual entities(private organizations or sub-levels fo government like cities/states) to take up the matters themselves.

And like I said(maybe it was to another person) I see government and individual efforts as overlapping efforts and not cumulative, with the more efficient approach being the individual one, at least in thsi day and age of lopsided government control. Most people don't care as much about climate change as they expect their government to - a form of cognitive dissonance if the will of the people is supposed to be reflected in the will of the government. Individual responsibility fixes this.

Anyways, loved the debating and honestly feel smarter as a result of it ;)

Okay, I have to ask: 
Where exactly are you getting the six billion dollar figure from, if not from the misunderstanding that I thought you got it from? 

Also, please cite a source that says it's either $100 billion per year from the United States alone, or $100 billion total from the United States alone. 

I voted to leave.

Important point worth mentioning: the Paris Accord is non-binding.

This means that NO COUNTRY is forced to enforce the points in the agreement, but it holds particular developed countries at a disadvantage. I read a few articles that explained the reasons to exit pretty well, here's a sum up of what I found:

1. Given the USA's position as a world superpower and the most powerful economy in the world, the whole world's eyes will be on it. Therefore, pressure to abide by the agreement won't be legal but social. Social pressure can influence politics and not always in the right direction.

2. Given point 1, courts could undo Trump's de-regulation of carbon emissions which has been increasing jobs in the country by large margins. The government and president's responsibility and commitment is with its people first.

3. The beneficial environmental impact would be minimal compared the large detrimental economic impact. According to an MIT study, if the Paris Accord conditions are met, the global temperature would only drop 0.2 degrees C from its current trend; that's worthless. Oportunity-cost wise, it isn't worth it with the current agreements. That's why Trump agreed to renegotiate if the terms were better for the American people.

4. The world´ s main polluters ie China and India, are given blank checks to continue operating as they please until 2030 or more, by the time they promise to have reduced emissions. This is a pretty cheap commitment, since by that time the markets will have already migrated from current polluting emissions to more green and compliant wastes. No effort or compromise required on behalf of those two, and the Paris Agreement doesn't impose the same restrictions on them as on the USA. Quite unfair.

5. Most the the regulations and recommendations are aimed at the USA, suggesting emission levels from 2005 be enforced. This means that industries and companies that have developed in the last 12 years would be reduced to a cripple. Anybody in business management know where to cut costs from when gvmnt starts enforcing high-cost regulations.... :( It's exactly the opposite of what Trump is trying to do.

6. The care for the environment should be each individual's and company's responsibility, not for a government to enforce. Every person owes the immedaite community and the environment for their continued operations. ie Mining companies start trainee programs to hire local population for its operations, this creates jobs and everyboy wins. It's called social responsiblity, and corporate social responsibility.

7. Trump is at odds with almost every political leader in the EU, therefore the Paris Accord is clearly designed to make the USA work with crutches.

8. Most of the reasons to join the agreement have been peer pressure for being concious about the environment. However, nowhere do we hear the disadvantages to pacting the Accord. The country could be in much better shape, less personal debt of its population and more job opportunities.

That's my take on it. Climate change is happening, but the USA shouldn't bear the brunt of the harm of the regulations when the rest would be free-riding on its efforts.

Deleting the walls of text, not needed given our consecutive back and forths. So yeah I can't find any other articles on the six billion, so that may be wrong.

As for the 100-billion pledge, and other details really, you'll probably find just as I am that each and every article has a slightly different explanation. But I believe it is a global fund(most developed nations together) of 100 billion a year, starting in 2020 with funding currently ongoing as we speak. Here's another "summary" article. With that yearly goal, that would be led by the US, it could end up a significant drain. The amount currently invested is pre-fund so to speak since we're not 2020.

My understanding is that they want to get as many as the countries as they can to immediately start contributing, with the goal of ramping up yearly contributions to $100B/yr by 2020 and continuing at that level at least through 2025.  It's not being "prepaid" in the sense of contributions are not being asked for yet. 

I'm not finding that there is a great deal of contradiction between sources that I have seen.  Some give more detail and others less (for instance, I have only seen the 2025 thing in one place) but I haven't seen stories really contradicting each other on the basic facts of the situation.  I'm sorry to say this, but with the $6 billion thing that you repeatedly misunderstood as being an actual payment and not just a hypothetical number being made up in order to criticize President Trump's grammar skills, I actually suspect much of the "different explanations" you may be seeing are down to how you are reading them. 

Between the links I put for the Paris Agreement there are definitely differences in details that result in the reader not knowing for certain what "is."

I see this as a fair point worth putting front and center to get to the bottom of, but it does not actually change the main points of my argument(s).

Please provide some examples. 

The first step in resolving a difference of opinion about how to respond to the facts is to make sure we are in agreement on what the facts are.  For an extreme example of this, I know a guy who used to think that "trade deficit" meant one country was literally handing the other a big pile of money.  Obviously he had a different idea about what to do about trade deficits! 

As they were brought up:

- Source1 (Vox: Four Things to Know...)

- Source2 (Slate: trump thinks we spend billions...)

- Source3 (NPR: So what exactly is in...)

Source1 states "richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries" misleading us to think this is specifically a US-goal. Source2 is misleading on the grammatical plurality/joke of 6 billion while also saying the 3 billion pledge "...isn’t even an annual contribution" making no distinction between that and the 2020-annual "project." Source3 explains that the 100-Billion goal "...is identified as a 'floor,' not a ceiling" which is quite misleading and/or confusing when all sources stress the casual non-abiding nature of the agreement despite meaningless addendums like this. Also, they don't mention who is on the "list of developed nations" that will be supporting developing nations. With such huge GDP differences in nations, surely a similar breakdown of expected contributions would ensue, but we are left in the dark.

In summary, between 3 articles, there are not enough specifics when it comes to being clear on how and why pre-2020 payments differ from post-2020 payments, how it relates to the reflection on countries GDP(relevant due to outliers like the US, and outliers in the other direction, but who is on this list anyways?), how this "floor," applies to the agreement in general, and no specific breakdown of how this 100-Billion objective is going to be achieved. Part of the criticism is in fact aimed at the casual nature of the deal which may inherently cause these problems in reporting.

My arguments, as they relate to individual efforts overlapping collective ones(rather than being cumulative), the science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself), and Trump having an important meta-game of power at stake still stand regardless.

There's no way around this: it's embarassing how people living in the US, one of the worlds largest pollutors per capita (only behind the oil states like Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and such, as well as Luxembourg, a country with a population of 0.5 million), are complaining that China and India should get on their level when it comes to reversing pollution and taking measures against climate change. Newsflash #1: Both India and China are doing much more to combat climate change than the US is relative to the size of their economy. Newsflash #2: You are already polluting way more than them per capita. To quote the bible "why do you see the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye but pay no attention to the log in your own?"

Third of all, no, it isn't unfair that the US and other developed nations have harsher demands imposed on us. We have been polluting massively for decades, even centuries. We have a bit of a head start in total pollution, and,as is pretty frikking obvious given the word, developing nations are still developing. They don't have as good economic capabilities to adapt as quickly as developed nations do. Of course it only then makes sense that the nations that have already polluted a lot need to make concessions quicker.

There is absolutely no way to defend such comments. They are disgraceful

And the coal jobs are already dying. The economy will be more benefited by making it a quick and painless death, rather than dragging it out as long as possible by putting it on life support. Free up the capital that hoes into coal into industries that actually have a future.

1.  I agree that the story doesn't explicitly say that it's a collective goal, not a goal for each individual country, but as you yourself pointed out earlier*, a reasonably educated reader can guess that it's not $100 billion per year from each of many countries.  The grammar of the passage does not support the interpretation that it could be a US-only goal and that other countries have other individual goals.  ("richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020")

* You:  "I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion"

2.  I just totally disagree that the story was ambiguously written on that point.  Even after knowing that you managed to misread it, I think readers can reasonably be expected to interpret it correctly. 

3.  I agree with you that the individual story doesn't make it clear that the agreement is non-binding in the sense that there really aren't any penalties for failing the targets.  On the one hand, this has been said many times in other stories, but on the other hand a story titled "What exactly is in it" ought to mention something like that!  However, the "floor not ceiling" idea simply means "at least this much", that is, the goal is not meant to put the brakes on donations if that much and more actually starts coming in.  Lastly, contrary to your expectations, I would be quite surprised if they have put together anything as formal or specific as you mention for the breakdown of who is expected to give what. 

To me, it's plain that the only real difference between "pre-2020" and "post-2020" is that the donations are supposed to be ramping up.  Countries are not expected to go from nothing to $100 billion (collectively) the day the ink dries on this agreement.  By 2020 the hope is that (at least) that amount will be flowing in (but not limited to that amount, therefore "not a ceiling"). 
___
Regarding the other points: 
4.  Meta-game of power:  Totally disagree with you here.  Firstly, Trump has showed the world pretty clearly that he runs things differently from his predecessors on a personal level already.  Secondly, it's not a good idea to trash international agreements just to prove what a rebel you are:  you should act on the merits.  And he already quit the TPP!  How many international agreements does he have to pull out of before he's a rebel?  Quit NATO?  The United Nations? 

5.  Individual vs. collective effort:  You already discussed this with palou.  In the end, I don't think you ever came up with a counter to his argument that individual actions would NOT be likely to solve the problem due to the incentives to behave otherwise; whereas the sum total of individuals might collectively agree to a structured effort that they would not spontaneously do as individuals.  It seemed to me that you just basically dropped the debate. 

My argument would be that the societal environment can be tilted so that individuals are not disincentivized (or not as much) from individual efforts.  Whereas the sort of scenario he painted, which I believe would be an example of "the tragedy of the commons", might well obtain absent such collective activity.  It is important to note that the state is not the only possible solution to this sort of conundrum; a society can create norms that reinforce behavior that is beneficial for everyone.  But it cannot be solved by looking purely at the individual level.  That is exactly the problem in this case.  And in the case of humans messing up the environment, I think it is evident that "society influencing individual behavior" has not yet solved the problem and expecting it to suddenly do so now with no state-level encouragement is, I hope you'll agree, just fantasizing. 

6.  "science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself)":  Wow, after you throw that parenthesis in there, I really think this would take up its own thread.  I'm all for a good debate, but maybe we should save this one for later, or choose this one and leave the others for later (if ever!)?