Earlier this month, President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Unsurprisingly, doing so sparked a massive amount of outrage. Many argued that we need to stay in the deal to combat “global warming.”

Yet, upon closer inspection, saving the planet from climate change doesn’t appear to be the only reason the deal currently has international support. On top of combating global warming, if the U.S. stays in the agreement, many other countries stand to make vast amounts of money.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, recently informed reporters that many people try to mislead others about this fact by pointing out that almost every single country is a part of it. “Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement, which is likely why it’s made. The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today,” he explained, adding, “there’s a stark difference between agreeing to sign on to Paris and agreeing to do something, to undertake pain. In essence, they rented their signature for the promise of Paris-related wealth transfers. But for them to promise to do anything beyond take our money and impose the agenda, too, would really cost us.”

Basically, Horner is saying that the Paris Agreement is a bad deal because while it is true that 193 countries have signed on to the agreement, many of them will only reduce their emissions if they’re given vast sums of money by wealthier nations. This means that they’re just using the deal to have richer countries redistribute their wealth.

For example, while North Korea is expected to double its level of pollution by 2030, that’s only if they’re given lots of international aid. If not, they’ve threatened to pollute even more. And in Peru, government officials only agreed to cut emissions 30 percent by 2030 if they receive billions in funding. Other countries, like India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, and Paraguay all have similar deals.

Because the countries are only agreeing to reduce emissions if they’re given money, it seems questionable to say that they’re in the deal because they care about climate change. Instead, it’s more reasonable to say that they like the deal because it’s one-sided and really only benefits them.

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives came to the same conclusion as Horner. On Twitter, he stated, “every foreign leader attacking Pres Trump over leaving Paris Accord -further proof the deal was one-sided and better for foreigners than US.” By saying this, he’s suggesting that they’re upset at Trump for withdrawing because they were benefitting from our involvement.

Every foreign leader attacking Pres Trump over leaving Paris Accord -further proof the deal was one sided and better for foreigners than US — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) June 1, 2017

According to Trump, the one-sidedness of the deal is precisely why he decided to withdraw. Specifically, he argued that “the Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States, to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers…and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”

Although he ultimately decided to pull out of the deal, he made it clear that he’s open to entering into a more fair agreement in the future. “[I’m willing to] begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction, on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers,” he explained. By saying this, Trump is showing that he has no problem being in an international agreement with other countries as long as it is an equal one.

Conservatives need to fight the lies being spread about the Paris Agreement with the truth. Despite what many on the left say, it was a terrible deal for our country. It hurt our economy without doing much to help combat climate change. Ultimately, the only thing the deal would have accomplished was redistributing wealth.