The Economist , unfortunately, is driven more by ideological opposition to President Trump than a sincere effort to analyze the White House reasoning.  The magazine’s latest salvo aimed at Mr. Trump takes aim at the president’s decision to withdraw from the  Paris accord.

There are no statistics to support the publication’s claim that virtually every signatory of the Paris accord on climate change has undertaken efforts to reduce harmful fossil-fuel emissions. Had the magazine been serious about this topic, it would have provided evidence to support its criticism of America. But it has none

The Paris agreement has always been unbinding. Translation: those nations that signed the accord could—and many did—continue business as usual.

The uncomfortable truth that The Economist chooses to ignore is that the signatories all gathered in a beautiful city, made numerous speeches extolling the importance of improving the climate, penned the document then returned home to promptly disregard the paper and their pronouncements.

It really makes little difference whether the United States—or any nation—remains a signatory of the Paris accord given how little sincere effort is made by individual countries.

Furthermore, the debate over whether climate change is caused by humans masks the more crucial reason for reducing fossil fuel emissions—to reduce the harm from toxic pollution.

We don’t have to agree on the science of whether the climate is changing or not. But we can acknowledge that the continued presence of toxic air, soil and water is bad and it’s time to reverse the contamination.

It’s unfortunate that The Economist was more interested in criticizing President Trump than it was in examining the hypocrisy of the other Paris accord signatories.