That's just rediculous. As a Christian, you are responsible for your actions. If you willingly f* over the climate, you're going to hell. As a Catholic anyway.

The US should help because unless everyone chips in we'll face climate changes that will ruin america just as much as they will ruin developing countries. Seeing as the money can be spent more effectively in poorer countries it's also a worthwhile payment. It's also got something to do with the fact that in general developing countries release far less pollution compared to developed countries, and for that we should try to help them out with the mess we are making. 

Looks like the US is finally showing colors and moves to true extreme nationalism without hiding behind patriotism. What could go wrong?

It's also funny how China is mentioned as a bad example when they're the most committed to reduce their carbon footprint. While they stop their coal, the US wants to increase its output.

Jesus christ people, doesn't all this hysteria, hatred and obsession get tiring after awhile? I'm exhausted just reading this crap. Really gotta make a point to avoid political topics from now on because it's seriously bringing me down. Seriously, some of you just gotta take a deep breath and chill, otherwise you're gonna be in for a long 4/8 years.

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 general scientific consensus has never been that "the world will end." 

Scientific predictions have always been some 3/4 degrees celsius increase in a 100 years. Which would put us into a worse position than we are currently (making combat valid), but no exinction of humanity.

The significantly more immediate threat of the degradation of our ozone layer was thankfully stopped by a worldwide ban of cfc.

The problem, in this case, is the action of game theory.

In a case such as global warming, where the effect and effort is spread out between several members, each player acting individually in their own interest will lead to a poor global result.

The main interest of the Paris accord, to the US, is not that they are participating themselves, but making sure that everyone else does participate. Since no individual nation has the power to tip the environnemental scale either way, it is in the individual interest of no one to participate in these global treaties. However, it would be in the interest if everyone if all participated.

To circumvent this problem, we have international accords. All states must collectivly agree upon action, with the benifit of knowing that all others will also work on a solution.

Even if you do not believe in climate change, it would set an extremely poor precedent to leave the Paris Accord. If there is no ccertainty that others respect their promises, there is no value forming agreements with said country.

And international agreements are important. They prevent overly violent warfare between larger nations, they assure that trade and consequently economy can thrive in a safe and fair environnement, assure the saftey and reedom of your citizens abroad. Putting the credibility of an agreement with the US at stake, or even the credibility of international agreements as a whole, is in no way worth the sovreignity that may be gained from leaving the accord.

Personally I think we should be proactive in trying to solve the problem even if our solutions are not full-proof - I want people to recognize that, the solutions we propose are not scientifically as sound as the fact of climate change itself.

There is legitimate criticism of the Agreement's efficacy etc.

The next big beef I have which I didn't discuss in the OP is that the government can only affect the very same things that individuals(all 8 billion of us) can. This international-governance known as the Paris Climate Treaty wants its aprticipating governments to regulate markets that affect pollution(gas, plastic, oil, energy, etc.), but they don't have to if individuals themselves would already do it.

The fact is people don't prioritize the environment as much as they want their governments to. That's a form of cognitive dissonance imo since the government is supposed to reflect the intentions of the people. How many people put significant time into researching how their daily and yearly lifestyle choices affect the environment? You can buy another car, you can ask the Starbucks Barista which trash should go where, you can take public transportation...we can do a lot of things, but we don't. But now we want governments to...

I won't go into detail since the post right above me that I replied to covers this. Individual efforts overlap government efforts. If the government puts pollution-restricting regulations on cars it would have had the same effect as if the individual themselves decided to carry the same amount of responsibility they ask of the government and decide not to buy said car.

The individuals have all the power they need, and between socializing and the internet there is no reason they can't make informed decisions on pollution-related lifestyle choices.

You do know that China still out polutes the US by a considerable margin? Just because they have lowered it by a bigger percentage than the US doesnt mean they are beating the US. They started from farther out than we did. China has a big smog problem, somthing the US has gotten under control with Catalytic converters, unfortunatly Catalytic converters add to green house gasses so less smog and more global warming.