LAST Thursday, United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump announced the country’s exit from the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement. The U.S., in expression of intent at least, now joins Syria and Nicaragua who are not members of the agreed efforts to preserve and protect the environment.

Lest it be forgotten, this agreement was arrived at after years of agitation and activism from scientists, environmentalists, individuals and institutions that the climate is changing, not for the better, and if mankind does not pay heed destruction is imminent.

In the face of skepticism that the environment is facing crisis, the presence of painstaking data-gathering and analyses of inconsistent weather patterns, abnormal extinction of flora and fauna, melting of the glaciers, and the drying up of fresh water, denial could no longer be sustained. The famine taking place in parts of the world, resulting in wars, is testimony to global warming.

As science has taken its rightful place in influencing decision-making, and where countries –including the largest carbon emitters such as the U.S.– have decided the time has come for governments to play an assertive role in reversing man’s destruction, it is unfortunate the Trump Administration does not see this as a worthwhile investment.

According to the International Finance Corporation, a World Bank Group, the investment opportunities to be born from the agreement by 2030 is expected to be around US $23 trillion. That the U.S. government doesn’t see it fitting to participate in this revenue source given the potential of its capacity as a major economic player, frankly, will create avenues for other economies to compete and surpass its economic might.

China, who ranks number one in carbon emission and who is a major global economic rival to the U.S., is moving to capitalise on the opportunities available. Make no mistake, money talks. Whereas the U.S., notwithstanding its imperfection, is seen as a beacon around the world for people interested in democratic values where its economic influence and might are surpassed, such carry global political implications.

Institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organisation, the Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank, with significant funding and influence from the U.S., have played significant roles in advancing the social, economic, political and cultural welfare of citizens around the world. U.S. funding here too is being reduced under the Trump administration.

The simultaneous views that climate change is a “hoax” and that the U.S. withdrawal is because it was shortchanged as argued by President Trump, is perplexing. If climate change is a hoax, exiting the agreement would make sense, but exiting based on being short-changed, questions the belief of it being a hoax.

Careful examination of the Agreement allows countries to set their targets, having recognition of the threat emissions pose to the environment. This means countries are not deprived of their sovereignty, but rather are allowed freedom to innovate and compete in a new world economy.

Knowledge of the agreement also reveals that exiting — as it has shown for the British wanting to leave the European Union (EU) — does not happen overnight, but requires a process that cannot be initiated until 2019. Possible withdrawal cannot happen before November 2020 and this issue may more than likely play a major role in the U.S. elections. This begs the question whether the agreement was read and understood or withdrawal was driven by fulfilling an unscientific campaign pledge in the process of creating a new version of nationalism of going it alone.

Major international institutions and governments have been coming out against President Trump’s decision. Profound statements came from EU Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete, who said the global agreement would not be allowed to fall at the whim of a domestic election, and France’s President Emmanuel Macron, playing off on President Trump’ s “Make America great again” slogan, committed his country will honour the agreement in its desire to “Make our planet great again.”

Since Thursday, countries, multinational corporations — including the fossil fuel giants — and major international institutions have been forming new alliances, which is evidently demonstration not only about the seriousness of confronting climate change, but also that no government will stop those committed to living up to the agreement.

Within the U.S., there continues to be resistance by businesses, governors, mayors and others who vowed to honour the agreement in spite of the federal government’s withdrawal Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has committed to give US$15 million to ensure the UN Environment Framework Convention has the money it needs to support its operation.

In man’s evolution, where it is being recognised the ability exists, thank to science, to safeguard humanity and the environment, it is unfortunate the U.S. under President Trump,  has chosen to withdraw helping to provide leadership to the change and by extension, being on the wrong side of history.