United States and the Paris Agreement

[23] The termination of the $3 billion U.S. funding ultimately impacted climate change research and decreased society's chance of reaching the Paris Agreement goals, as well as omitted U.S. contributions to the future IPCC reports.

[34] The main aim of the Agreement is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels", predominantly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[37] Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and tweeted in 2012 that he believed the concept of global warming was created by China in order to impair American competitiveness.

[40] His opposition to climate change mitigation was unchanged in the first months of his presidency, in which he issued an executive order to reverse Obama's Clean Power Plan and other environmental regulations.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the other leaders present, was publicly unimpressed with Trump's refusal to cooperate on climate change mitigation, which was seen to damage Germany–United States relations.

[52][53] Examinations of Trump's speech by The Washington Post and The New York Times pointed to numerous fallacies, including, but not limited to, claims that the U.S., under the Paris Agreement, was forbidden to build coal power plants; that a difference of 0.2 degrees Celsius is insignificant in climatology; that U.S. contributions to the Green Climate Fund were paid out of the U.S. defense budget; projections that the U.S. is on course to become the "cleanest" nation on earth; and Trump's reiterated claim of personal support for environmental causes.

[25] However, President Trump's decision to withdraw did not necessarily mean that it affected U.S. emissions since there was no direct link, but instead meant that the U.S. was no longer regulated by the Paris Agreement once officially withdrawn.

The president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, Matthias Wissmann said, "The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive.

Jason Bordoff, energy-policy expert at Columbia University, agreed that withdrawing would make no difference to the economy, arguing that it would be determined by market conditions like the price of oil and gas.

[65] Kabir Nanda and Varad Pande, senior consultant and partner at Dahlberg, respectively, argued that despite the U.S. withdrawal the American private sector was still committed to renewable energy and technology.

[67][68][69][70] Piers Forster, the director of the University of Leeds' Priestley International Centre for Climate, called the decision to withdraw "a sad day for evidence-based policy" and expressed hope that individual Americans, businesses and states would nevertheless choose to decarbonize.

The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), in a statement by its president Antonio Busalacchi Jr., said that the decision to withdraw "does not mean that climate change will go away" and warned that "the heightened potential for increased greenhouse gas emissions poses a substantial threat to our communities, businesses, and military."

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation called the decision to withdraw "very discouraging" and said that it would diminish confidence in international climate change efforts; the technology think tank called for federal efforts on "the smart grid, energy storage, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced nuclear and solar power" and warned that "Without a smart, aggressive clean-energy innovation strategy, the world will not avert the worst effects of climate change.

[72] Navroz Dubash of the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi expressed bafflement at Trump's move, citing the declining costs of renewable energy sources and the increasing difficulty of obtaining investment for fossil-fuel projects.

[73] Environmental scientist and risk assessor Dana Nuccitelli stated that it "now seems inevitable that the history books will view Trump as America's worst-ever president".

[77][78] American environmentalist and writer Bill McKibben, the founder of the climate change action group 350.org, called the move "a stupid and reckless decision—our nation's dumbest act since launching the war in Iraq."

[80][81] Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt praised the decision as a victory for America's middle class, workers, businesses and coal miners.

[89] Responding the following week to the withdrawal, the governors of California, New York, and Washington founded the United States Climate Alliance, pledging to uphold the Paris Agreement within their borders.

[90][91] By the evening of June 1, 2017, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia declared their intention to join with United States Climate Alliance members in reaching Paris Agreement goals.

[190][191] The companies were: Following Trump's announcement, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and General Motors reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement and for measures to tackle climate change.

[188] Michael Bloomberg pledged $15 million to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretariat, explaining: "Americans will honor and fulfill the Paris Agreement by leading from the bottom up—and there isn't anything Washington can do to stop us".

[192] Shortly following Trump's announcement, thirty city mayors, three state governors, more than eighty university presidents and the leaders of more than a hundred businesses joined Bloomberg in opening negotiations with the United Nations to submit a plan for limiting American climate-change emissions in accord with the Paris Agreement guidelines.

[199] A national poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs conducted in June 2016 found that 71 percent of American adults favored U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement.

[203] USA Today, in an editorial, stated that "There was no greatness in the decision he rendered Thursday, just the heightened prospect of a climate-stricken globe left behind for future generations.

[207] The Tampa Bay Times criticized the move, writing that it would especially endanger coastal states such as Florida, which are already suffering from rising sea levels, which damage property and infrastructure and harm the drinking water supply.

[210][211] A piece by commentator Erick Erickson published by Fox News described the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement as the correct move, for the reason that "climate change is [not] an issue worth caring much about".

[212] Douglas E. Schoen, also writing for Fox, contrarily said that a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement "only hastens America's retreat from global political and economic leadership".

A lead in the British newspaper The Guardian said that the decision would be unlikely to stunt the growth of renewable energy, and suggested that "a much more likely casualty of Trump's choice is the US economy he claims to be protecting".

"[218] The Toronto Star said that In the long catalogue of destructive things that Donald Trump has inflicted on the United States and the world, pulling out of the most important global attempt to slow the impact of climate change must go down as the worst.

As part of his transition plan, Biden announced that one of his first actions on his first day in office would be to return the United States to the Paris Agreement via an executive order.