For the intellectually challenged, a treaty n. a pact between nations which, if entered into by the United States through its Executive Branch, must be approved by"two-thirds of the Senators present," under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution, to become effective. The Paris Accord Staes goals but not any mechanism to force compliance, nor any requirement to maintain any specific stated goals. One cannot necessarily find any given country specific obligations is fraught because any country can change it's goalposts at any time, unilaterally.
Thus, for the seriously intellectually challenged, one cannot claim that the US must exit or renegotiate because it has unfair obligations. If the US wants to pay less, it is the choice of the US. If the US wants to pollute more or move back to coal, it is the right of the US to do so. The Paris Accord declared the intentions of the signatories but did not establish treaty obligations. THUS, BY DEFINITION PURSUING THE PARIS ACCORD WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL ACTION. orly for shouting. It seems some people cannot read well enough to discern the difference between a declaration of intent and a contractual obligation to perform a specific duty. The Paris Accord is a declaration of intent. Anybody whose intent is to bring coal back to where it was in, say, 1930, can do so without exiting.
Exiting is a good idea only if the intent is to yield leadership to China in renewable energy, which produces several times more US jobs than does coal, oil and gas combined.
Only one of those three is growing- guess which one.
Only one does not cause carbon pollution, and does not need any fuel that must be paid for- guess which one?
Only one can be used to make a speaker plant with less than six months notice- guess which one?