The re­ac­tion to the de­ci­sion to with­draw the US from the Paris Climate Change ac­cord has been deaf­en­ing. Unfortunately, these tirades fall on the deaf ears of the un­holy climate-change deny­ing tri­umvi­rate of Trump, Pruitt and Bannon.

The New York Times ed­i­to­r­i­al of 1 June lament­ed the im­pact on fu­ture gen­er­a­tions:

Only fu­ture gen­er­a­tions will be able to cal­cu­late the full con­se­quences of President Trump’s in­cred­i­bly short­sight­ed ap­proach to cli­mate change, since it is they who will suf­fer the ris­ing seas and crip­pling droughts that sci­en­tists say are in­evitable un­less the world brings fos­sil fu­el emis­sions to heel.

and un­der­scored his ob­vi­ous ig­no­rance (or dis­dain) of the sci­ence of cli­mate change, and the true eco­nom­ic im­pact of cli­mate change:

In huge neon let­ters, it sends a clear mes­sage that this pres­i­dent knows noth­ing or cares lit­tle about the sci­ence un­der­ly­ing the stark warn­ings of en­vi­ron­men­tal dis­rup­tion. That he knows or cares lit­tle about the prob­lems that dis­rup­tion could bring, es­pe­cial­ly in poor coun­tries. That he is un­mind­ful that America, his­tor­i­cal­ly the world’s biggest emit­ter of car­bon diox­ide, has a spe­cial oblig­a­tion to help the rest of the world ad­dress these is­sues. That he is obliv­i­ous to the fur­ther dam­age this will cause to his al­ready tat­tered re­la­tion­ship with the European al­lies. That his malfea­sance might now prompt oth­er coun­tries that signed the ac­cord to with­draw from the agree­ment, or re­think their emis­sions pledges.

Perhaps most as­ton­ish­ing of all, a chief ex­ec­u­tive who touts him­self as a shrewd busi­ness­man, and who ran on a promise of jobs for the mid­dle class and mak­ing America great again, seems blind to the dam­age this will do to America’s own eco­nom­ic in­ter­ests. The world’s grad­ual tran­si­tion from fos­sil fu­els has opened up a huge glob­al mar­ket, es­ti­mat­ed to be $6 tril­lion by 2030, for re­new­able fu­els like wind and so­lar, for elec­tric cars, for ad­vanced bat­ter­ies and oth­er tech­nolo­gies.

Bill McKibben in his Op-Ed “Trump’s Stupid and Reckless Climate Decision” points out how the de­ci­sion re­jects not on­ly the sci­ence of cli­mate change but al­so the hu­man­iz­ing val­ue of diplo­ma­cy in an in­creas­ing­ly tur­bu­lent world:

It’s a stu­pid and reck­less de­ci­sion — our nation’s dumb­est act since launch­ing the war in Iraq. But it’s not stu­pid and reck­less in the nor­mal way. Instead, it amounts to a thor­ough re­pu­di­a­tion of two of the civ­i­liz­ing forces on our plan­et: diplo­ma­cy and sci­ence. It un­der­cuts our civilization’s chances of sur­viv­ing glob­al warm­ing, but it al­so un­der­cuts our civ­i­liza­tion it­self, since that civ­i­liza­tion rests in large mea­sure on those two forces.

The French Government tweet­ed a video re­but­tal of the White House’s base­less ar­gu­ments for re­ject­ing the Paris Accord:

David Brooks in his piece “Donald Trump poi­sons the world” of­fers an in­sight in­to the warped world­view dri­ving cur­rent White House poli­cies:

In this world­view, moral­i­ty has noth­ing to do with any­thing. Altruism, trust, co­op­er­a­tion and virtue are un­af­ford­able lux­u­ries in the strug­gle of all against all. Everything is about self-interest.

We’ve seen this phi­los­o­phy be­fore, of course. Powerful, self­ish peo­ple have al­ways adopt­ed this dirty-minded re­al­ism to jus­ti­fy their own self­ish­ness. The prob­lem is that this phi­los­o­phy is based on an er­ror about hu­man be­ings and it leads to self-destructive be­hav­ior in all cas­es. The er­ror is that it mis­un­der­stands what dri­ves hu­man ac­tion. Of course peo­ple are dri­ven by self­ish mo­ti­va­tions — for in­di­vid­ual sta­tus, wealth and pow­er. But they are al­so mo­ti­vat­ed by an­oth­er set of dri­ves — for sol­i­dar­i­ty, love and moral ful­fill­ment — that are equal­ly and some­times more pow­er­ful.

People are wired to co­op­er­ate. Far from be­ing a flim­sy thing, the de­sire for co­op­er­a­tion is the pri­ma­ry hu­man evo­lu­tion­ary ad­van­tage we have over the oth­er an­i­mals.

The de­ci­sion to with­draw from the Paris Accord has large­ly uni­fied rather than di­vid­ed busi­ness and com­mu­ni­ties to tack­le cli­mate change head-on. It is forc­ing peo­ple and com­mu­ni­ties every­where to talk about and de­cide what course of ac­tion they should take in the face of this turn­around in of­fi­cial US cli­mate change pol­i­cy.

Former New York City Mayor Bloomberg has launched a coali­tion of states, cities and busi­ness that seeks to sub­mit a plan to the United Nations that com­mits to greenhouse-gas lim­its set in the Paris Agreement and is ne­go­ti­at­ing with the UN to form its own National Determined Contribution — a set of emis­sions stan­dards for each par­tic­i­pat­ing na­tion un­der the Paris Agreement — that is ac­cept­ed along­side the oth­er coun­tries in the ac­cord.

At the state lev­el, three state gov­er­nors an­nounced the for­ma­tion of the United States Climate Alliance, a union that will work to re­duce green­house gas emis­sions, even as na­tion­al lead­er­ship on cli­mate change fal­ters. For now, the al­liance in­cludes California, New York and Washington State. The gov­er­nors of those states, Jerry Brown, Andrew Cuomo, and Jay Inslee, re­spec­tive­ly, re­leased a state­ment on Thursday de­scrib­ing how the new al­liance will build state-level part­ner­ships to con­tin­ue ag­gres­sive American ac­tion on cli­mate change and up­hold the goals and stan­dards of the Paris Agreement.