It is a bit disingenuous not to mention that a big part of the US's recent reduction in emissions have been due to the 2008 financial crisis, and the temporary losses in production that resulted from it, and were not necessarily due to any particular nobility of purpose or deliberate action of the US government. When China suffers a big recession or depression (which seems likely in the near future, from what I have been reading), the same thing will happen to them.
Also, the Trump administration has repeatedly been opposing attempts to deal with, or even recognize the existence of, global warming and its consequent climate change. For instance, one of its first actions was to essentially tell NASA that it was no longer in their purview to point their satellite telescopes down at earth, and that they should exclusively be focused on outer space exploration (despite the fact that NASA had been the expert in earth monitoring up to that point). Apparently the Trump administration is so certain of the nonexistence of climate change that there's no longer any need to actually measure its status or get objective temperature measurements and other data. They've also been repeatedly weakening EPA regulations, claiming climate change is a "Chinese Hoax" etc., all without supporting evidence. I'm sure that the fact that the fossil fuel industry heavily disproportionately funds Republicans has nothing to do with all of that. /s
Regardless, when the government is doing virtually everything it can to fight any attempt at controlling climate change, and individual states like California are instead forced to take action (such as launching their own satellites) due to the fact that the federal government has basically completely failed to do anything (and states must then fight the federal government to do it!), I think it's shows a fair amount of chutzpah to attribute the credit for the U.S. carbon emission reduction at the hands of the federal government as if Trump deserves credit for the reductions that have gone on. (Definition of Chutzpah: A child that kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he's an orphan.)
You do not appear to have considered the possibility that the point of the Paris accords was to get countries to agree, in principle, that there was a problem and that something needed to be done about it, and that it was never intended to be the final agreement between countries: it was only a first step, with additional steps added as needed when it became evident how effective it was, and to what degree countries were actually complying with it. The fact that the US is now trying to pull out of the Paris agreement completely means that we now have no credibility when it comes to the later steps in which we might have pressed for a stronger agreement or could have pressured other countries to comply more fully with their informal commitments. By characterizing the Paris agreement as "virtue signalling" you are missing the entire point of it.
Personally, I think the best solution to the problem is probably some sort of market-based solution such as a carbon tax, thus turning the market externality of greenhouse gas pollution into an internality that can be handled by competition within a free market. That's a very "conservative" approach to the problem (at least according to the old definition of "conservative" as opposed to whatever is going on now) but we won't ever get there as long as the party who is historically the one to advance such solutions instead finds it's in their financial and political best interests to pretend that the problem doesn't exist at all, and thus fight any attempt to solve it.
Characterizing the left as SJW's damages your credibility, by the way. That kind of labeling of opponents only shows that you think you know what they're going to say before they say it, and blinds you to nuances in their opinons that you may not be familiar with. This is not a "my tribe" vs. "your tribe" battle: It's a fight for the future stability of the entire planet and it's various species (many of which are in danger of going extinct) not to mention the humans who depend on them. It's not a zero-sum game, and we should be cooperating to find a solution instead of fighting about who wins. Many in the left are not SJWs in the pejorative sense of the word, and are more intelligent and more knowledgeable than you give them credit for. You might want to consider opening your mind to the idea that some people on the left may know things that you don't. Neither side has a monopoly on facts.
Something to consider:
https://me.me/i/the-political-...
