>>11163167>>11163455(2/2) What America does matters, image matters, promises matter (even if not always met, intention and effort count towards good faith which aid in further agreements and alliances in the future).
America traditionally has carried a lot of weight on the international stage, being able to pressure nations whose policies do not align with Western and American priorities and interests (for better or worse). When America left, it was made clear that reducing carbon emissions (even the modest amount proposed) was not in America's interest. One of the great sources of America's strength in influence is through its alliances and pressuring as a bloc (NAFTA and other western alliances). You're right that the Paris Agreement had no binding mechanisms, but back in 2015-16, a lot of countries of the world wanted America to like them, recognize them, and do business with them (senpai notice me) and reallly didn't want to be on the receiving end of sanctions or even condemnation from the U.S. Everyone wanted U.S. support, no one wanted to be on their bad side. When we left, we took away a lot of leverage or "teeth" from the Paris Climate Agreement, took a lot of morale and incentive away from the countries within the Agreement, and was among the first of agreements, promises, and alliances we would renege on over the next few years, considerably diminishing America's influence on the direction of the world, which leaves a large vacuum that others will gladly fill. "A man's only as good as his word."
tldr: the Paris Climate Agreement wasn't perfect, but neither is a life jacket when you'd like a boat. The Agreement was much more influential with America in it. It, and other climate initiatives, have been weakened considerably since we left, and, along with other broken promises, has also weakened America's influence as a stable, reliable business and policy partner.
