The UN's climate science panel recommends a 40-70-percent emissions cut by 2050 from 2010 levels, whereas the Paris Agreement itself commits signatories to peaking emissions "as soon as possible". He has now cast himself, for most of the global community, as a James Bond style villain, a Dr. We will be watching and pressing all IMO member states, particularly some of those flags of convenience representing such a large proportion of the world's fleet not to backslide.
Meg Whitman, chief executive of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, made one last attempt to dissuade the president in a televised interview on CNBC on Thursday before the decision was announced. We actually, ironically, owe him a favor.
"Today's decision is not only disappointing, but also highly concerning for those of us that life on the frontline of climate change", said Marshall Islands President Dr. Hilda Heine.
"Our commitment to the Paris Agreement is unshakeable".
Trump suggested he's open to renegotiating a "better deal".
Carbon reduction targets that the USA set under Paris commitment aimed at reducing emissions by 26-28% in a decade.
So why do it? And as the world's wealthiest nation, she said, the USA has a moral responsibility to "leave future generations with a healthy, sustainable planet". Why let China and Germany step forward into our shoes?
He is breaking from many of America's staunchest allies, who have expressed alarm about the decision.
In television interviews the morning after Trump's announcement, Vice-President Mike Pence and Kellyanne Conway, a senior White House aide, defended Trump's decision as a reassertion of America's sovereignty.More news: UK election to go ahead on June 8 despite London attack
More news: Terrorism one of the biggest challenges world facing today, says PM
More news: NHL playoffs: Preds rout Pens 5-1
Dietmar Oeliger, Head of Transport Policy, NABU said: "Donald Trump is making a mistake ignoring the facts of climate change".
The term pariah state given by the Irish ex-president and former United Nations special envoy for climate change, Mary Robinson, summarizes in a great extent the world condemnation of the USA government " s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
Britain also distanced itself from the decision of the United States to withdraw from the Paris agreement.
[W] ithdrawing from Paris in four years will have no impact on US climate emissions between now and 2025.
What is new, however, is the intensity of the response. The U.S. pumps out greenhouse gases at a rate second only to China, and remains the world's biggest climate polluter historically thanks to CO2's roughly 100-year atmospheric lifespan. "So irresponsible to future generations of America", she said.
On Thursday, President Trump announced the USA is joining Syria and Nicaragua in abdicating from the landmark agreement, ratified by former President Obama in 2016 and signed by 195 nations. Jeff Immelt tweeted, "Industry must now lead and not depend on government." The Governors of California, Washington, and NY began assembling a new coalition of states willing to challenge Trump and coordinate their climate leadership, expecting at least 10, and perhaps as many as 25 participants.
But on Friday, the charitable foundation Bloomberg Philanthropies pledged to contribute $15 million to the UNFCCC secretariat.
Is this true? How will Washington quitting the 196-nation Paris club affect the fight against climate change?
Media captionCan coal make a comeback under Trump?