Or we focus on not making the mess in the first place and directly support areas affected by us, not put our money in a pot and not know hwere any of it goes.

And how is that exactly bad?

First of all how is Russia exactly rising? It has only 0.5% growth recently, dueto to the sanctions and the low oil price. And even if, how is Russia or China rising any way different than America and the West rising, or anyone else?

You continue to say that the US don't know where the money goes but this is simply not true. When giving money to the fund created by the paris agreement there are first and foremost some general rules of where the money is supposed to go, which the US is aware of assuming they read the treaty they signed and now are agains, and furthermore the specific investments are also not secret, so when the investments are done the information will be there for the US president to see. 

All areas are affected by you because global warming is a global effect. I know, judging by the name one would think the pollution made in the US only affected you guys, but it turns out that the word global actually refers to a worldwide phenomenon. 

Declining American influence is bad for America. I'm not taking sides whether I think this is good or bad.

Sanctions won't last forever and continental Europe needs Russia more than Russia needs Europe. It's a very large country with a large amount of natural resources and growing foreign influence. It's not the Soviet Union but not as weak as the media wants you to believe.

I do think that you are misunderstanding something. 

This is a classic prisoner's dillema. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Starting off with the hypothesis that people are selfish: (as was proven by the failure of the communist experiment)

Suppose we have a car, costing 10 000$ less, but releasing pollutants in the atmosphere that reduce the average human lifespan by 0.1 seconds.

For each individual, driving this car is logical; The impact of saving 10 000$ is probably worth 0.1 seconds of life.

So, all 2 000 000 000 people purchasing a car , worldwide, choose this option

The result is that everyone saved 10 000$, while also, in average, people live 6 years 4 months less. 

Most people would agree that spending 10 000$ and living 6 years 4 months more would have been preferable. Nonetheless, the less preferable option appeared, while everyone made logical decisions.

Of course, the Paris accord is more complicated.

However, a very general rule of Game Theory, a single rational player (unit that makes decisions) always optimizes collective interest better or equal to individual players optimizing their own interest.

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 skimmed too much, apologies. This is certainly valid. But in a way, just thinking right here on the spot, it may support my perspective.

A fair rebuttal, but it's more of a solution to the problem of climate change then a barricade. Right? By noticing this phenomenon we can then be conscious of it and actively fight against it. It's the knowledge of these kinds of phenomenon that allow us to make more informed decisions when it comes to the specifics that individuals(in my individualistic framework) have to make (buying/lifestyle choices, etc. or the example of car-dillemma you illustrated).

It's legitimate, but I don't see it running counter to a libertarian framework.

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.

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. 

The french President just ripped trump  a new one.