You provided mostly speculation. The point about the legal culture is, ipso facto, evidence that the treaty will hit the US disproportionately regardless of what the text itself may say. The $100 billion commitment to pay for third world countries to meet targets is ipso facto evidence that the treaty disproportionately hurts the US because it is proof that third world countries would not have to pay for the putative burdens under the treaty. The fact that it does not impose any restrictions on China until 2030, but on the US today, is ipso facto proof that it will further disadvantage the US in competition with China.

If you can provide facts of any sort that show, on their face, that China and India, for example, will be hit with requirements that as of today and not 15 years from now will require them to do as much damage to their economies as the US will have done to its economy, then please, post it.

If you can show that European countries will be hit with similar lawsuits to compel compliance if they lie and cheat, please, post it.

If you can show that the cost to European nations will be similar to the US cost on a per capita basis, please, post it.

However, if all you're going to do is just state "it will hurt everyone's economies, that's the point" and then pretend that I haven't used facts to refute that point, without you having made the slightest effort to gather any facts that might possibly refute those points, then don't try to claim you provided evidence, because you haven't.