If President Trump announces Thursday that he has decided to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, the move would likely enjoy broad support among Republican voters.
Pulling out of the climate accord would also be seen as a reward to “Trump country”: voters in industrial states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin or rural areas where environmental regulations are viewed as economically harmful.
Polling on the Paris Agreement, which aims to reduce the negative effects of climate change caused by human activity, is inconsistent. But there is scant evidence Republicans would miss U.S. participation. Trump campaigned on withdrawal, defeating Hillary Clinton, the Democrat who pledged fidelity to it.
Even upscale suburban GOP voters suspicious of Trump and more interested in combating climate change than other Republicans aren’t likely to shed tears over a U.S. pullout from Paris.
“The suburban Republicans Trump can get may value a cleaner environment. But they sure don’t want the Dutch mandating how we get there,” said GOP consultant Brad Todd, who has worked campaigns in Florida, where elections are driven by suburban voters and the environment is a key issue.
A Republican strategist with similar experience, who was not authorized by his clients to speak publicly on the matter, said climate change is salient among the sort of Republican that resisted Trump in November and has continued to do so.
The problem is international directives. Republicans concerned about the environment are likely to fear Paris could hurt them in the pocketbook by placing the lion’s share of the economic burden on American taxpayers.
“Many upscale suburban Republicans are convinced human actions are changing the climate and they want their representatives to do something about it,” this strategist said. “But they’re less convinced that an international treaty written in Paris offers a magic formula to solve all the problems.”
A HuffPost/YouGov opt-in online poll conducted in mid-May found that 61 percent of Americans said the country should stay in the agreement, 17 percent supported withdrawal and 21 percent were unsure. But only 31 percent of self-described Trump voters backed Paris; 46 percent supported exiting, and 22 percent were unsure.
Trump faces three basic options for removing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. He could send it to the Senate to be approved as a formal treaty, where it would likely fail to attract the 67 votes necessary for ratification.
Or the president could exit the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, a decades-old treaty from which Paris derives authority. This method would dramatically shorten the timeline of withdrawal, but could cause a diplomatic backlash from the remaining signatories.
Finally, Trump could follow steps laid out in Paris for countries that want to exit the agreement.
That would require waiting three years from the effective date of the agreement, November 2016, at which point the administration could send a letter expressing its intention to withdraw. Withdrawal wouldn’t be official for an additional 12 months.
The president could face criticism from the Right if he follows this path because it would involve lending credence to the legal legitimacy of the accords.
Myron Ebell, who led Trump’s EPA transition team, said placing the fate of the agreement in the Senate could provide Trump with political cover. He could fulfill his campaign promise and policy inclination to exit Paris, but explain to critics at home and abroad that there simply wasn’t enough domestic support to remain.
“The way this is portrayed right now, it’s President Trump against the entire world, he’s the only person who’s trying to destroy the planet,” Ebell said. “Once the Senate voted, it would be the Senate’s responsibility.
“I think actually it’s the easiest way to do that; it’s a way to share the responsibility rather than taking it all on the White House,” he added.
The U.S. joined the United Nations-organized Paris Agreement under former President Barack Obama. Democrats argue that the science of man-made climate change is settled and national economies and populations could suffer if something isn’t done before it’s too late to mitigate its ill effects.
This view never caught on among Republicans. Some believe the notion of man-made climate change is a sham; some prioritize the jobs and economic growth that come from fossil fuels exploration over environmental concerns.
Some are concerned but aren’t convinced government action is the answer. Some are convinced the government should do something but don’t trust developing nations, which have less-stringent environmental regulations than the U.S. to share the burden of addressing climate change fairly.
“While some think the climate is changing, most don’t think it’s all from man-made causes. The fact no one can say by how much or even measure the human impact on the climate, makes us all cynical,” David Carney, a Republican consultant, said, explaining the view from the Right. “The near-religious outrage by the Left on this matter makes even more of us think something is a miss.”
Indeed, Nick Loris, a policy analyst who focuses on energy and the environment at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, doesn’t take issue with climate change science.
Loris’ problem is that he doesn’t believe Paris will solve the problem, while costing the average American family $20,000 by 2035.
“Paris is the open door for egregious regulation, cronyism, and government spending that would be disastrous for the American economy as it is proving to be for those in Europe,” Loris said.
Nevertheless, Trump’s own administration has been split on what to do about Paris. While it has been assumed the president was leaning in favor of leaving all along, there were factions that wanted to renegotiate the deal or even stay in it as currently written.
Trump said he will announce is final decision at 3 p.m. on Thursday from the Rose Garden at the White House.
