On June 1, President Donald Trump made the decision to pull the US out of the 2015 Paris Accord, a landmark global coalition meant to curb emissions, making the US one of 3 other countries out of the 197 in the UN not to sign.

Besides Syria and Nicaragua, the entire rest of the UN, including North Korea, joined Paris and pledged to reduce emissions. This absurd ratio, 3 countries not in the accord, 195 in the accord, is an additional source of embarrassment for Americans who care about the environment and are aghast at Trump's decision to rescind America's pledge to reduce its harm toward the world. Many of these people, including myself, initially, also find the company that the US shares in its resistance to the accord embarrassing for America as well.

This is a problematic state of mind, as it lends unnecessary judgment toward third-world countries and supposedly belittles America's status as a power in the UN. The full story is a bit more complex than that when looking at the reasons why Syria and Nicaragua did not sign the Paris Agreement.

Syria is in the midst of an enormous civil war, making it near-impossible for it to pledge to reduce carbon emissions. Likewise, Syria is under UN sanctions for human rights violations, which caused the country to refuse the accords.

Nicaragua, on the other hand, rejected the accords because it didn't go far enough. The country's leaders claimed that because the accords aren't binding (i.e. there's no punishment put in place for not holding up the standards for emissions detailed in the agreement), that the standards themselvesare not strong enough. Likewise, Nicaraguan representative Paul Oquist stated that the accord takes an unfair stance on accountability by not considering the size and GDP of each country involved. Oquist explained Nicaragua's stance as opposing the idea that the countries that produce the majority of the world's carbon emissions are considered as accountable as those countries that produce less than a single percent of the world's emissions.

With this information brought to light, Americans ought to find that it is not an embarrassment for the US to be in the company of two third world countries, but rather the fact that the other two countries refused the agreement for less profit-driven and climate-righteous reasons than the US.

In fact, in analyzing the difference between the reasons that the US refused the accords and why Nicaragua did, I am struck by a stark contrast. Both countries are rebelling against Paris, but while Nicaragua claims that larger countries ought to take more responsibilities, the US claims that the accords are too tough for larger countries.

So then what does this say about the United States, that the country which basically spearheaded the entire endeavor to finally take a step toward a global migration for climate justice has pulled out of it following a change in leadership? What does this say about our tendency of othering third-world countries, when in fact, our economic strength is what makes us a larger liability to climate change? What does it say about the power structure of our country that a group of people with the reins are able to make an action that the major CEOs of the country condemn?

What will it say about us, as citizens, if we don't make our voices heard?