Whether or not the US can afford the cost isn't the issue. The problem is we're creating yet another international body that serves no purpose and costs us the most. And the frustrating thing is no one actually defends the agreement in its own merits. Look at the comments, I've brought up multiple points and the only retort I've gotten is that "the US looks bad" or, "everyone else is doing it" which are great reasons to get into drinking but weak arguments for a massive international program. Let's look at the actual merits of the agreement:

1. It will prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2°C

   • No, it won't. The vast majority of scientist agree that the accord does not go nearly far enough to prevent us going over that arbitrarily picked temperature.

2. If richer countries pay then poorer countries won't pollute or destroy their habitats

3. this is