>
Because they heap regulation on the West while sending money to China and India who have no obligation to improve their environmental policy.Both China and India are signatories of the Paris Accords. They are aiming to meet their targets. The US, at least for the four previous years, wasn't even in the Accords and not trying to do much in that time.
There are no regulations in the Accords, just a goal with regards to carbon emissions. If you want minimal regulations to achieve that, either introduce a cap-and-trade system (like Bush 41 did for acid rain), or introduce price signalling via carbon pricing, as recommended from four former Federal Reserve chairs (including Greenspan):
* https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/news/2019/1/17/forme...
> Nobody can explain to me why this is wrong and that Paris Accords are actually terrible for the global environment, but its still awful the US wouldn't sign them because "we have to do something!"
Perhaps no one can explain why it's wrong because it is not wrong? The Paris Accords are not about "the global environment", they are specifically about one thing: carbon emission. Specifically reducing them by a certain amount.
Why do you think reducing them is bad?