Sure, I'll be glad to explain.
You have already lost the argument, that you keep trying to argue. The US has already begun to lower emissions, and will continue to lower emissions. We are burning a lot less coal and replacing it with nat gas and renewables. CAFE stds have risen and will continue to rise. Gasoline consumption in the US peaked in 2007.
One of the big future reductions in CO2 will come from the Ryan budget aka the GOP budget enacted last Dec which extended the renewable energy tax credits for 5 more years.
Congratulations on your great victory! But unfortunately you have not presented any arguments. You have done a lot of chest pounding, appeals to authority, name calling and citing stuff that has nothing to do with anything. You have claimed to have training in a scientific field but you don't understand even the basics of how "science" works. You have worked as a technician with chemicals, so have I. I was a leader on our Hazmat Team. I took a great deal of chemistry in college, as well, as years of continuing education classes. None of that has anything to do with what we are discussing.
The only thing you have demonstrated is that you have no idea how the nonscientific “theory” that you are advocating is suppose to work. Are you trying to argue that the recent observed 20 year “pause” in global temperatures as measured by satellites was from CO2 emersions reductions in the US?
World wide emissions of CO2 are continuing to rise greatly during “the pause” while temperatures remained stable. None of the computer models used by the UN’s IPCC predicted this, in fact they all had less predictive value than random chance.
Whatever minor reductions in CO2 we have made in the United States have been completely overshadowed by increases from China, India and other developing nations. There are no alarmist advocates that I know of that claim that anything we have done in the US has had any meaningful effect on worldwide temperatures.
You are obviously a new comer when it comes to “arguing” about “global warming”. You do not even do a good job of parroting Bill Nye. You haven't presented an argument; you don't even seem to know what the actual arguments are. If you have an argument then go ahead and present it.