Tillerson's former company, the oil giant ExxonMobil, has also supported the Paris accord, and in late March wrote a letter to the White House reiterating its view that "the United States is well positioned to compete within the framework of the Paris agreement, with abundant low-carbon resources, such as natural gas, and innovative private industries, including the oil, gas and petrochemical sectors".
A more moderate approach to the Paris deal might involve modifying the United States' pledge to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, rather than seeking to exit altogether.
Trump has already moved to dismantle a raft of Obama-era climate policies that would help the USA satisfy the commitment it made with more than 190 other nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The Obama administration agreed to reduce United States emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below its 2005 levels by the year 2025. As Environment America's clean water program director John Rumpler noted Thursday, Pruitt's vision for the EPA and the Trump administration's proposed budget would make it harder for the agency to hold polluters like Consol accountable in the future. The aides have also argued that remaining in the pact will give the US leverage to win greater support for technology that will reduce emissions from the use of coal and other fossil fuels.More news: North Korea Missile Launch Fails A Day After Military Parade
"Companies with big natural gas portfolios will gain with climate policies that accelerate a shift already underway to replace coal with natural gas", Axios reported.
A State Department official offered: "As with many issues, the administration is reviewing the United States' worldwide climate change policies".
"We own the seat, and we're not going to incur the economic harm that the USA pledge would have imposed", Reavey said by phone.
At the White House Tuesday senior administration officials, including Pruitt, Tillerson, Kushner and Bannon, will be going over the pros and cons of staying in Paris. Now that the agreement has entered into force, it takes three years under its terms for a party to withdraw, followed by a one-year waiting period - a length roughly equal to Trump's first term in office.More news: Shark kills teen girl surfing off Australia's coast
Ivanka Trump reportedly favors the country meeting its Paris climate agreement obligations. "America's participation in global climate change programs has wasted taxpayer money and led to questionable and harmful interventions in energy markets through government-backed financial programs, mandates and heavy-handed regulation". In light of the recent actions, what previous policies will remain and what will change?
"It's a bad deal for America", Mr Pruitt continued. "They do require a global response".
"It's definitely good for us and for our future".
"That may be a winning strategy for the executives at Exxon and other companies, but not for the US economy as a whole", Pyle said.More news: What Do New Documents Reveal About Prince's Prescription?
Trump may also choose to stay in the agreement and reduce the emissions commitment. "It's possible to provide the energy the world needs while also addressing the climate challenge".