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.
