If that's the case, why does he need to "pull out" of it?
If it's just an agreement with no sanctions built in, why does he have to say he's "pulling out" of it when he could just flat-out ignore it completely and do whatever he wants regardless?
There must be some sort of consequence prompting him to do this.
Part of the reason this got agreed to was that it has no enforcement mechanism built in. I know that sounds like it means it's pointless, but just getting countries agree to a goal in general is hard, and there's about zero chance of countries agreeing to any sort of by-law punishment if they failed to meet requirements for this. Past attempts at agreements have fallen apart in part due to attempts to get enforcement written in.
The enforcement mechanism in practice is international shaming - you fail to abide by the agreement and everyone else will be perfectly happy to bring up your inability to stick to agreements every time you negotiate for anything. That sort of shaming is actually pretty powerful. There's also the idea that Paris could be built upon to add additional enforcement gradually.
Regardless of what Trump does, the US won't 'officially' be out of the Paris agreements until 2020, where a subsequent president could say "Nevermind, we're staying in and will redouble our efforts to hit the goals outlined". Trump can't turn the US pollution levels back on like a valve, and a lot of things dropping our CO2 output have too much momentum for him to hurt (coal is not coming back, solar/wind will keep growing).
That's the tiny silver lining in the giant black cloud of death though. By 2020 we'll still have lost 4 years of progress, the EPA will (probably) be gutted, research efforts that take years will have to be restarted, and so on.
how about those who voted third party?
Fuck them too. Even if your state was 'safe' for Clinton by 20 pts, a third party vote meant you voted for Johnson or Stein, both of which are horribly unqualified people.
