Recently when I've been hearing arguments supporting President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, it keeps coming back to the idea that the agreement is useless because hundreds of years of pollution can't be fixed. But...that's not the point of the agreement and it never was.

The PCC never claimed to be "fixing" anything; it's a prevention effort and I'm not quite sure what's so hard to understand about that. Which, if people are agreeing that there has been years of pollution and are acknowledging an issue...I'm confused as to why they wouldn't want to try and slow down that problem.

The point of is it to reduce FUTURE emissions and....obviously I think everyone knows there currently isn't any way of taking back years worth of degradation. What's done is done....but why wouldn't we want to do anything we can to reduce our impact on the planet when it's obvious that we are and will continue to affect it even more drastically unless we start making bigger reduction efforts. The agreement is a way of setting limits as it states, "Governments agreed to...a long-term goal of keeping the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" and to "...come together every 5 years to set more ambitious targets as required by science."

This doesn't sound that absurd to me especially when it doesn't seem like our government is coming up with any new objectives that are even nationwide. People would be less "dramatic" about the withdrawal if our own nationwide efforts were established, but it just seems like every preexisting organizations and efforts we do have are diminishing; that's why the withdrawal came as such a blow. I understand people getting upset that we pay into the agreement, but as a country that emits 45% of global carbon emissions when we only make up 5% of the world population, it starts to make sense. But again, if that money was reallocated for our own efforts, money wouldn't have to be pooled, but nothing new is being created anyway so why not just hold onto the small efforts we do have until we create something else. However, this still doesn't seem fair as an abundant amount of degradation is based in developing countries even though they barely make a dent in environment related issues; so put others in imminent danger while using their land...seems right.

Anyway, what this all comes back to is the argument that the agreement is useless because it can't "fix" anything. If you're going to try and make a case for yourself about this...at least understand what the agreement entails instead of using something the agreement itself never stood for.