Keyword Site Search

Landscape Architects Split 50/50 on Paris Climate Accord

Reader's Opinions



On Thursday June 1, Trump officially announced the U.S. would pull out of the Paris Climate Accords. That same day, LASN magazine emailed a sampling of its readers for their opinions on the pull out, and asked them to state specific reasons for their positions. Trump stated it costs U.S. jobs and is an undue burden on American taxpayers.

The response was split almost exactly 50/50 for those in agreement and those opposed to the US pulling out of the agreement. About 80% of all respondents sited the need to protect the climate regardless of which side they took. Here is a compilation of the response from across the country. We have not identified the names of the senders, only their city and state, nor edited the comments, except for a couple uses of profanity.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the question.


China is the number one emitter of CO2 and yet they are given a 10-year reprieve under the Paris Agreement. The US would incur huge penalties/taxes, perhaps in the trillions within the next ten years if we had signed the agreement. Shouldn't we negotiate an better agreement that holds everyone...China, Russia, India and any other major contributing nation to a plan that causes reductions worldwide? Ignoring their contribution for ten years while making America and only America accountable would damage US economy without effectively achieving any significant global effect. Therefore, the move (US not signing the current agreement) is a good idea to get these countries back to the negotiation table to work towards achieving a better outcome.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana


The removal of the US for the Paris Climate Accords is another large step in the removal of the US as a leader in the world. We are now aligned with only Syria and Nicaragua (who thought the agreement did not go far enough). China has estimated that transitioning its economy to green energy will create over 13 million jobs. There have already been hundreds of thousands of green energy jobs created in the US. The energy revolution is coming regardless of the misguided actions of our current low information President. Landscape architects should embrace this revolution to help ameliorate the environmental and ecological effects of climate change, to maintain the US as a world leader in technology, political action, human rights, and other important areas, and to create the millions of jobs that come with every stage of technological evolution. Let's be smart and ethical and not narrowly ideological and blindly partisan on this crucial issue of out time!

Arlington, Texas


I support President Trump in this decision. We need to spend the money on our own nation; our military, economic development, infrastructure, etc., has been underfunded for far too long.

Orlando, Fla.


There is no question that Trump is correct. The US is not the pollution generator it once was - all you have to do is travel around the world to see that. The industries in the US have already paid for our portion, we should not be required to pay for everyone else's. The primary focus of the Paris accord is has little to do with pollution or greenhouse gasses.

Birmingham, Ala.


As educated, trained, experienced, and licensed Professionals, our role on any of our works, opinions, and other due diligence activities is to determine the factual essence for performing work, offering opinions, and rendering due diligence findings. Therefore, I do not know the content of the Paris Agreement and am ethically without a scientific, sociological, and/or economic basis for expressing an opinion. Unless others who express opinions know the essence and implications of the Paris Agreement, it is my opinion that any such opinions are without foundation and are, therefore emotional.

Jacksonville, Fla.


President Trump's pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord is a grave mistake. These actions have set us back as American citizens and responsible citizens of the world. We live within varied ecosystems, but share one planet, and what we do within the United States impacts all other nations that inhabit it. Turning our back on limiting and controlling consumption, urbanization and inequity we encourage the impacts of climate change to devastate the earth. Not embracing mass actions to control climate change will also cause the United States to lag behind in the development of new and sustainable technologies that will provide solutions and jobs. As put forth in the New Landscape Declaration issued by the Landscape Architecture Foundation "as landscape architects we vow to create places that serve the higher purpose of social and ecological justice for all peoples and all species", America must do what is in the interest of the health and resiliency of all communities. We must join forces with those governors and mayors of American states and cities who support and abide by the principals of the Paris Climate Accord.

New Orleans


I think there are a lot of people in the Midwest that are glad he pulled the US out. For one, Obama & Kerry were not the most astute/competent people to be negotiating something like this. It certainly wasn't in the best interests for the US. This is not about the US putting itself above the earth/world. It's about the farcical notion of the whole agreement. The US can and will still seek to reduce emissions whether we are a part of this group or not.

Oklahoma City


Bogus Logic...We will loose out on the new energy revolution to China and India to save a few oil and gas jobs here. Will not make gas cheaper or equipment any cheaper.

Not to mention leaving a clean and livable planet for future generations.

Calif. Parks


I am against this move! Rather than removing jobs, clean energy creates jobs by both replacing one type for another and adding new markets. His views are very short sighted and based on his own 'fake news'. Not working to combat climate change will create that undue burden on America and the rest of the world, financially, physically, emotionally, etc. The resulting cost will be far more than our contributions to this effort would be.

Sherwood, Oregon


I personally believe that he is not listening to the greater part of America. Global warming and climate change is happening. In my own state of Minnesota, the USDA Zones have changed from 2, 3 and 4 to 3, 4 and now 5. That makes us warmer. There have been models stating that we will be what Des Moines is currently at (in temperature) in about 20 years. In my own part of the state, which has a great number of Sugar Maple trees, they think that those will disappear do to how warm the climate is becoming.

Also, clean energy is the future. As even our own Senator Al Franken stated, there are more jobs in the clean energy sector, rather than the coal sector, and it is only growing. There are many solar panel projects, in my area, and Xcel Energy in the Midwest is pushing towards a reduction in coal and gas and increasing wind, solar and other clean energy resources.

As far as where I work, we are seeing the desire for more recyclables, and less waste. We have more hybrids as part of the fleet, to save energy. All of this is a great thing. Even though President Trump wants to pull out, I think there has been a surge in the states continuing on the path of Paris Agreement, on their own; and while that is a good thing, I would rather see us work together as a country rather than independently. I think his vision is short sighted and while he is saying that he is looking out for American interests, he is forgetting that we've become a global economy and we need to look at how our actions not only affect us here at home but also abroad.

St. Paul, Minn.


I am very much against pulling out of the Paris Agreement. In the long run (and not very long at that), it will cost taxpayers a huge amount of money to recover from disasters caused by climate change. The industrial revolution may have been good at the time, but now we know how to do things without destroying the planet, and those changes that need to be made are indeed cost effective.

Albuquerque, NM


As I understand it, Trump pulled out because it did not make sense financially for the U.S. Why are China and India afforded so much more time to clean up their messes then we are? They are allowed to increase their pollution over the next 10-15 years, while we are expected to lower ours, thereby negating any gains we make. We are expected to close our coal mines while they are allowed to open more of theirs. The "Green Climate Fund" places an unfair burden of dollars on the U.S. and why should we pay anything towards their clean-up? Are they contributing to ours? So from what little I know, his pulling out was not against Global Warming per se, but rather the lack of fiscal sense for the U.S. Time will tell. If he can renegotiate our position and still stays away from any accord, then of course I would not support that. Stand in the flooded streets of Miami Beach and tell me that rising sea levels are bogus!!!! Governments have been tirelessly trying to destroy our planet, basically because they are ignorant and make rules that keep true professionals from actually helping out. As a 47 year practicing Landscape Architect, we constantly deal with municipalities who make new rules that are not environmentally friendly. So having a President that is willing to place our well being above the rest of the world is a welcome change. He says he is a strong believer in clean energy, let's give him a little time to prove it.



That moron is an absolute idiot!!!

Decatur, Georgia


I think that it sucks. Trump fails to understand that progressive communities are needed at a global scale to address global issues. Sure it affects some jobs and it creates others. It is very Neanderthal to think that someone might have to retrain sometime to meet a contemporary challenge. Coal mining is not going to refresh as an industry just because Donald Trump loves coal miners. Why not say that we love placer mining so that we can destroy a few more watersheds? I am sure that we could dredge up some nostalgic supporters for placer mining. Why not start whaling again, completely rub them out?

Utah State University


It my opinion that pulling out of the Paris Agreement is a shortsighted and selfish decision that ignores our future and our great concerns for the environment and the impacts of climate change. It appears to be a vengeful and hostile decision based on a hatred of the Obama legacy, a disbelief in science, an ignorance of current and future energy technologies, as well as an unrealistic promise made by Trump during the election process to bring back the dying coal industry. This decision is also based on the conservatives hatred of all things progressive - if we liberals are in support of a particular ideal than that ideal must be terribly wrong and bad for our Country.

This action is a decision that would not be made by a responsible and forward thinking world leader, but it does speak loudly to the character and principal the man in the White House.

My personal opinion supported by the current outcry of many,

Ft. Collins, Colo.


I am opposed to this. We have worked hard to build Sustainablity into our profession and the projects we do. This sets us back decades in terms of clean energy, awareness, and social justice. Clean energy and environmental consciousness actually can create jobs. We need to start thinking about the "right kind" of jobs as well for our communities and our planet.

Rapid City, S.D.


I'm horrified by his decision. Nothing is right about it ...

The incorrect/dated information he based it on (climate change a hoax perpetuated by China and others to hurt our economy??? What will hurt our economy is turning our backs on renewable energy... who is losing potential jobs on this???)

The voters he "owes" for being in office (the same ones he promised the return of coal jobs to...which will never happen)

The advise he decided to listen to (let's see, thousands and thousands of scientists and economists and experts, your daughter, Rex Tillerson?.... or Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt?)

And his own inability to admit that 98% of the rest of the world just might be on to something. I don't get it. An undue burden on taxpayers? The trillions of dollars it will ultimately cost us to try fight sea level rise and other catastrophic weather changes with an outdated archaic infrastructure is the ultimate undue burden on taxpayers ... Unless you also ultimately include not have an inhabitable planet earth.
Omaha, Neb.


I am completely against us pulling out of the Paris Agreement. It will allow the most active polluters to not do anything about reducing their impacts on the environment. The mechanization of coal production is one of the prevailing reasons for the reduction in workforce in that industry. It is interesting and more particularly right on par, for Trump's staff to reference Pittsburgh in the President's speech, not understanding that Pittsburgh is one of the greenest cities in this country.



I don't know that much about the Paris Agreement but it sounds like a good idea to pull out seeing there were only two other countries involved (Syria and Nicaragua)and we were footing the entire bill. If some countries are polluting the skies, etc. then they should be fined. The United States can't continue to be the bank of the world paying for everything. When a family, company, city, state or nation needs to reduce expenses cuts have to be made and it will affect someone. I say get out of the United Nations while we're at it.

Here's my opinion in a nutshell; if you were broke, (which the USA is), would you loan money to anyone by borrowing money? That's what our nation is doing!

Dewey, Ariz.


I am for Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement because I believe that "Global Warming" or now It's called "Global Climate Change" (because you can measure temperature) is one big lie! One volcano eruption or a large forest fire puts more carbon in the atmosphere then man burning fossil fuels. Ask any "Real" scientist, that hasn't been paid to produce only research that supports that climate change is caused by man, what they think and you will get the truth.

Think about it, climate is the one thing we cannot predict. The trained meteorologists can't predict the weather most of the time. Man has been keeping climate data for less than 200 years so the fact that there are telling us what happened thousands of years ago is crazy.

Don't get me wrong, as a landscape architect, I totally support switching to clean energy production, protecting the environment, sustainability, and taking care of our earth. But I don't like being lied to and manipulated.

San Mateo, Calif.


I think it's a very short sighted decision. It literally hands China the opportunity to become world leaders in green technology, potentially threatening the momentum US green companies currently have, as well as US jobs in the green industries.

It also sets the US at odds with Europe and other societies that are forward thinking and want to make the environment healthier for future generations.

It is difficult to see coal miners lose their livelihood but the US government cannot prop up a dying industry at the expense of a growing industry that is not only more viable economically but is a necessity to counteract global warming.

Fullerton, Calif.


It will diminish our ability to work with other nations in the future. This signals the word of the United States means very little when it commits to something. I believe it reduces the resect and our role in a global community.

Little Rock, Ark.


Absolutely the right thing to do!!! Tired of the USA having to shoulder the vast majority of the burden and expense. Go to Beijing, China and India (I've been there) and see the incredible smog!!!) They don't have to start abiding by the rule until 2030.

I'm thrilled we have a President who is standing up for America.

Reno, Nev.


It's very unfortunate that the environment gets politicized, and I see the actions by Mr. Trump as a total reckless move. Our country is one of the biggest polluters in the world, and should be a leader in the fight against climate change.

His claims that it hurts our economy, is totally ludicrous; he is only trying to appeal to the coal and oil industry states that have supported him. Let's face it the coal industry is not coming back, and we are moving away from oil as a source of energy; California is a perfect example of how renewable energy industries are creating jobs, an expanding our economy.

Pasadena, Calif.


I opine that this puerile man's short-sighted decision shows a glaring ignorance of the symbiotic nature of Nature while it carelessly and callously disrespects our ethical responsibility to be stewards of the Earth - the one and only planet we have and upon which our very survival depends.

I believe that his stated argument for abandoning our moral obligation to this global effort is neither true nor credible, is regressive in its reasoning, and is fueled by hubristic rapaciousness and malignity.

I suggest that it would be smart and wise for him to honor Pope Francis by reading the gift His Holiness bestowed upon him during their painfully awkward Vatican visit - a signed copy of his beautifully articulate encyclical on the environment, Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home.

But the sad truth is he is not a honorable man and lacks the gratitude to appreciate the gift, the intellect to fathom its content, and the wisdom to heed its critically important message on the grave implications of anthropogenic climate change.

Not that I have a strong opinion on the issue. ;-]

Quincy, Mass.


The United States has always been a leader in industrial innovation and this has led to some of the most important steps forward in energy conservation and environmental protection. As a country it is in our best interest to continue to be aware of how we impact the environment for ourselves and for future generations. However, the United States does not need to be bound in an agreement with other countries to continue to move forward, be innovative, and be environmentally responsible. If we and other nations are to be committed to an environmentally aware economy we should set strict guidelines for our imports as well. What is the point of burdening our US industries with growth stifling regulation if we will continue to import competing products that are manufactured under far less environmental regulation?



I'm completely covered up with work and commitments, but felt compelled to reply to your direct message.

Because I wear both hats - as a Landscape Architect and a State Representative - it has been my experience that we, as Landscape Architects, must continue to focus on being Landscape Architects and advocate for those items that have a direct impact to our profession. Disenfranchising those in policymaking positions with broad-brush issues which alienate those on both sides of an issue are counterproductive, particularly when we need those very same policymakers for assistance.

Elected officials are bombarded from all sides on so many issues. If Landscape Architects communicating to their policymakers about the profession and advocating for things such as licensure or program funding, start to confuse who we are and what it is that we're there to champion with the latest media-cycle issue, the elected officials will quickly learn that our organization is nothing more than another special interest group. At which point the mission, that the ASLA has worked for so long to define and communicate, is lost.

If we, as individuals, want to jump into the media-frenzied fray, by all means go for it! Lest we dilute our message, the profession of Landscape Architecture must maintain a sharp focus on those items that have a direct impact to our profession. My advice to our the SCASLA has been just that.

Myrtle Beach, S.C.


I was not surprised that President Trump did it. The U.S. was pledging 3 billion to help developing nations meet their emission goals, but there's no guarantee that they will use the money for what it is meant for or be subject to any penalty for not meeting their goals (other than to get on a shame list). So from that standpoint, Trump is saving money for U.S. taxpayers. Since It's non-binding, it's a bad deal. Plus, it is not fair when countries like China and India are allowed to keep polluting. I just returned from China after living there 3 years. They are ruining their country with bad water, soil, and air. I only saw 2-3 days of blue sky a month in Shanghai. The focus of the Accord should be force countries to reduce greenhouse gases, not ask the U.S. for a handout when the results are uncertain.



Finally, a president who puts America first!

Obama (Soetoro) destroyed America by entering into the Paris Agreement that was a cover to redistribute America's wealth to greedy international buddies. The worst offenders, China and Russia signed but were not obligated to conform to the Paris Agreement. They are polluting more than any other country.

Yes, I believe we should lead as Earth stewards; advance hydrogen fuel cells, solar power etc....and we are without the Paris Agreement that bleeds America's wealth away.

We do not need an accord with UN countries who always seek to destroy America.

Global warming is the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind by Al Gore designed to bring America to its needs and fatten Gore and his ilk with $15B/yr. Chicago Exchange. Over 31,000 true climate scientists have exposed this hoax, so now they call it climate change. Climate change has always occurred....nothing new here...and it is not caused by mans industry. Note the Little Ice Age and global warming before and after...without the 'evil industrial revolution' ....hummmmm I smell rats.

Wake UP America - and let us lead!

Lithonia, Ga.


I think it was the right thing to do. The climate has been changing forever. Iowa, were I live, was once an ocean, was once covered by glaciers as late as 10,000 years ago and is now a giant cornfield! All political.

Waterloo, Iowa


I fully support President Trump's decision. The Paris Agreement is a farce in its pretention to affect climate change. It's designed to weaken the economy of our country.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon. To the extent that human activity accentuates it, legitimate efforts should be made to lessen the impact. Phony solutions, such as the Paris Agreement, are a distraction and do more harm than good.

There are many advantages to solar energy and I think that as time goes on, it will succeed fossil fuel use in the electric generation industry. That will happen for economic reasons, not by misguided environmental activism.

I think Trump showed a lot of guts standing up to the environmentalist fanatics and their apologizers.

Evansville, Ind.


Thanks for asking! I was watching President Trump's speech yesterday and was expecting to hear from ASLA within 24 hours. In fact, as soon as he was finished, I received an email from ASLA stating that the organization is vehemently opposed to this decision.

In my opinion, the Paris Agreement is not about climate change, but rather it is a far-reaching economic agreement that puts America and its citizens at a financial disadvantage. The goals of the agreement are not balanced and are based on assumptions rather than fact; it isn't fair to all parties involved; it doesn't hold other signers to the same standard or financial obligation; and it is an agreement that holds America hostage to other countries around the world. I believe the climate change discussion and movement has, from its inception, been a global political movement designed to create a new 'green currency' aimed at throwing guilt and shame on the United States for its history of economic prosperity. I applaud President Trump for standing up to the pressures from politicians, so-called environmental activists and the media elite. He knows a good deal when he sees one, and conversely, he pulled us away from an economically crippling deal.

I know my views are different from many landscape architects who see this as a direct hit to our profession. I disagree and am expecting that time will tell that President Trump made the right decision for the American people.

Vero Beach, Fla.


I think it is great, Trump should have pulled out on day one, when he took office! Obama should have never gotten us into such a ridiculous agreement. Per Obama's agreement, the US was going to give Billions of dollars to the same countries who are the world's largest polluters. Why should the working class in America, who pay all the taxes, and have taken all the hits, be subject to an agreement that would actually pay China and India money to continue to steal jobs from hard working Americans and continue to pollute the earth.

I think ASLA needs to get out of the liberal shadows and stand up for America, working class people and support initiatives that support manufacturing in the US. When goods are manufactured in the US, these companies have to follow environmental rules and don't pollute the environment, like other countries. When goods are produced in China, Mexico, India and other counties, they have no environmental concern or rules. Acid and Mercury that China pumps into the atmosphere is over the west coast of the US in 5 to 6 days depending on the jet stream. For a tree hugger to go out and protest manufacturing and drive it into Mexico or China is a joke, they didn't save the environment, they just made it worst, the plant they shut down was ten times cleaner then the plant that just opened outside the US.

Since you ask my opinion, I also support the President's approval on the keystone pipeline and his initiative to maximizing our bountiful natural resources in coal, oil, natural gas and fracking. The majority of the world would love to be blessed with such resources, when we restrict ourselves, China just sets back and laughs at us. This country needs pro-American, pro- business, pro- manufacturing policies. The more people we put back to work with good wages, the entitlement list get smaller, more people pay taxes and we lessen the burden on the working class who has been ignored for the last eight years.

This country is so much more than arguing about guys putting dress on and going into women's restrooms at Target or flaky dudes wanting to marry another flake. It shouldn't even be a discussion, it is wrong! The discussion should be about supporting families, about bible based morals, ethics and earned respect, about supporting and helping working class Americans. These are the people with the true spirt of America, no one gives them anything, this country just keeps taking from them, but they still get up every morning, don't complain, don't protest, go to work every day and pay their taxes into a broken system, these are the true heroes in this country. These are the people we should be holding up as role models to our children and for the future of this country.

I think it's fantastic! It's great to see someone take a principled stand against the liberal establishment and their minions, the mainstream press. The Paris Agreement isn't an agreement at all, it's a giveaway of America's money and resources! We pay other nations for them to abide by the Agreement, are you kidding me! And China, the world's biggest polluter doesn't have to do anything until 2030, unbelievable!

Of course the rest of the nations want the Agreement, it handicaps the US and creates an institutional advantage for other nations over America!

Final thought, during the middle ages there was also consensus among scientists that the earth was the center of the universe, until one man stood up to the establishment and said no we are not the center of the universe! He was vilified and even tortured for his beliefs, will President Trump now suffer the same fate in the liberal media and the Democrat Party, of course he will!!!

P.S. I hope that you can keep an open mind concerning this issue, too often many publications lean towards opinion versus facts. I understand that it's generally easier to take someone else's word for fact, when a little due diligence on the subject might reveal an entirely different set of facts!

Canton, Texas


I do not see the relevance of this question and how your magazine represents Landscape Architecture.

Orlando, Fla.


I wish that I was more shocked - the level of irresponsible and narrowly self serving decisions of this presidency hits low after low. Pulling out of the Paris Accord is deeply damaging to the world and to this country's position in it. The Trump administration has no clothes. It is beyond incompetent: it is damaging and dangerous.

Somerville, Mass.


Thanks for your email. I appreciate you asking your readers, and not just making assumptions like the folks at ASLA. Regarding your question, I'm ambivalent. The Paris Agreement sounds great, and the intent is good and I support that intent, but I doubt it makes that much difference at the end of the day. Maybe, as Trump says, the US should consider modifications and see about rejoining on more equal terms, as it sounds like the present agreement is not particularly fair to the US. But I don't know all the details, and I doubt 95% of the population does either.

Hendersonville, NC


Global warming is a major problem. Trump is delusional to think otherwise. I have a 7 year-old daughter, I'd like her to still be able to enjoy the out-of-doors, when she gets to be my age.

Gaithersburg, MD


I think President Trump is correct on this issue and is keeping a promise that he made to the U.S. citizens that elected him. The Paris agreement was economically good for most other countries, especially China and India and would be devastating to U.S. industry. In addition, like many this today, this accord would have been paid for primarily with U.S. tax dollars. As a U.S. citizen and a long time taxpayer (I have been working and paying taxes since I was 12 and I am now 55), I believe we have paid more than our fair share to cover others expenses. As he said in his speech yesterday that he is more interested in what is good for Pittsburg and not necessarily Paris. It's a refreshing feeling that we have a President that puts our country first , but cares about the rest of the world as well.

Richmond, Va.


Trump did the right thing.

It was a BAD deal and the Paris Accord never passed in congress--Obama pushed it through.

We can't enforce other countries to obey, and It will cost the US too much--who knows what they would do with the money we so easily hand them--let them pay for it. They need to follow our lead and do as well as we have been doing to clean our environment over the last 50 - 70 years.

The local and state governments have stepped up and need to continue to do it.

I am all for cleaning the environment, but this was just a BAD deal -a political deal.

Making other countries step up without us may prove to be the best thing for them.

We lead on clean environmental issues and that will not change.

Willoughby, Ohio


I am against pulling out of the Paris agreement because climate change is a real threat, and controlling the global temperature is key to reducing its impact.

Kalamazoo, Mich.


I think it is very bad for the economy and the environment. We have a global economy and that is not going to change. We need to work together always. The country historically has been in the opinion that uniting nations is best. The whole administration is very scary.

Waterford, Mass.


I think that trump pulling out of the Paris agreement is a wrongheaded move. We should be investing in clean renewable energy and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, not going back to the coal era. I think this decision will have disastrous effects on the planet and on our economy as a whole, as other countries eclipse the US in new technologies.



America should be leading the world to a new sustainable future, not dragging it down. Trump's short-sighted policies will hurt our economy far more than they will benefit it. He has already done incalculable damage to our country's image and position of moral leadership. I just returned from a trip abroad, and what I found is people can't understand why the American people would have even elected such a monster.



I would say that this is a disaster.

Woodland Hills, Calif.


How do I answer this seriously, when Trump's reasons for pulling out of the Paris Accord are so ill considered. LA is a steward driven profession, requires patience & the long view. I have spoken in other countries about my particular expertise in LA. I'm sure those invitations will dry up now. Why? Because the US just got off the bus, & is now a laggard. Who will want to hear from the class clowns about climate solutions? Exactly 2...war torn Syria, & tiny Nicaragua.


Minneapolis, Minn.


I think it is great! Paris agreement is just political and benefits weaker countries in trade agreements. None of this has anything to do with the climate and would not have any effect whatsoever on what the climate will do in the future. Excellent move by Trump on behalf of American citizens. I think anyone who thinks humans are having any significant effect on the climate are fools.

San Juan Capistrano, Calif.


I believe our President is concerned about our environment. I also believe he is concerned about the disproportionate efforts by various countries, as am I. There has been a saying for several years about paying your fair share. I think our President is negotiating for our country to be in a better position to protect our American workers. I applaud the negotiated tactic.

Bellevue, Wash.


I'm against his action since it relegates the US to a position of weakness for leadership in reversing man's impact on the earths climate. Technological innovation will only come when we have strong government regulations. Reduction of auto & power plant emissions was a result of new technologies mandated by emission reduction levels.

It is not about US. It is about the future of the planet - all of us.

Riverside, Calif.


I'm sure most are immediately replying with they are AGAINST this administration pulling out. I would also assume that 75% have no idea of the specifics of that accord and therefore how could you make a 'yeah' or 'nah' judgement on the topic. It was the same with the Kyoto Protocol. People make their judgements based on the team they are rooting for. My answer is, I don't know. Ask me after I have studied it for a week and I may have formed an opinion a little more. It's also similar to you asking me if I am for or against prescribing Buprenorphine transdermal for my Pseudofilliculitis, I don't know, I'll let the people that study that stuff decide.

I believe strongly in environmental protections but that shouldn't give politicians the right to jump into a tangled mess of rules and regulation. At the same time, this administration is likely exaggerating the impact this has had and will have on the "American Worker". Political party affiliations have become the nation's new sports rivalry, root for your team and against the other team at all costs".

Claremont, Calif.


He's stupid and we can kiss this country goodbye as the "leader" of the free world. It's completely out of control and unfortunately will have long term effects for generations in terms of collaborating with other countries. If the only other countries that pulled out were Syria and Nicaragua, what does that say about our commitment to bettering the earth for our children? Any company doing international trade should be terrified at this act of cowardice.



I'm vehemently opposed to Trump's decision. I'm stunned and embarrassed, though not surprised. We have a lot of work ahead of us to get in front of the president's unconscionable acts of economic greed and environmental massacre.



It's a poor business move for the times we live in. Pulling out will not only cost us jobs, it will cost us investment losses and will create more of a burden on taxpayers. And very importantly, it destabilizes the global market potential and sets us back decades. Its a bad sad choice and makes America look disgraceful-and ignorant.

Delmar, NY


My question to climate change deniers is do you not think humans are causing climate change, or do you totally reject the whole idea of climate change? We can debate whether or not humans are causing it (I believe we are) but there is widespread scientific consensus that climate change is real. So why not plan for it?



I don't think professional publications should get involved with politics; even though political decisions effect our business.

There is really no effect to the agreement until 2020. We are in it until then from what I understand. After listening to Trump's speech this morning; it sounds more of a ploy to re-enter negotiations to gain a better deal for the US. That the US is being taken advantage of in this agreement.

Not sure if the Paris agreement costs the US jobs. Believe most companies and individuals will forge ahead with practices, implementing ideas and so forth for lowering emissions and a cleaner environment in the name of climate change. Certainly corporations and individuals, small businesses have much to gain going green and working toward a cleaner environment simply from a marketing point of view to the general public.

Ventura, Calif.


While I support reducing our carbon footprint, I more support the idea of reducing our national debt. I also believe there's massive waste in most government programs, and in particular multi-national programs because they're not held accountable. Finally it's my understanding that China is not doing anything for many years towards the cause. So I don't support the system and I support the president's position on this one.

He has no clue what the Paris Accord includes. His actions are all mostly based in repealing anything our first black president did. He thinks he looks strong to the 200 other world leaders, but what he really looks like to the rest of the world including most Americans is a narccistic, mean spirited phsycopath. All we can hope is that as most narcissist go he goes down in flames.

Santa Cruz, Calif.


Profoundly misguided and deeply troubling, for many reasons.

I agree with Trump. The terms are too stringent, and if attained the terms do not guarantee that it actually improves climate. There are not enough countries participating at the same level we are expected to. It does costs US jobs and is undue burdens to the majority of American taxpayers. Environmentalist do not take into account the needs of people. Their lawyers are taking monies from people and jamming our court systems unduly.

Bakersfield, Calif.


T he recent actions by the president his embarrassing world tour and the ongoing undoing of environmental regulation and enforcement by our current EPA put us at odds with the rest of the western world. These new rollbacks in environmental policy underscore the unfathomable ignorance of this new administration. Like many Americans, I look on with shame and humiliation at our new standing among nations and wonder how we will recover. The new President, thin-skinned, unable to focus, ignorantly tweeting at 3am, simply cannot hold a consistent thought, is recognized by almost everyone as a bloviator and inveterate liar - in the end will not clearly articulate clearly a real and consistent vision. Most importantly, for those of us in the Green Industries, NALP (National Association of Landscape Professionals) fully supports the current EPA - in opposition to ASLA, an organization that presses for more sane environmental policy. Why is that? How can we have two diametrically opposing viewpoints and work consistently toward the same goals? With a prominent trade magazine noting that over 70% of landscape business owners supporting Trump in the election , this growing rift between landscape architects and the contracting community will need to be healed, if all of us - as stewards of the land - hope to save our precious resources for the children that we come home to.

Woodinville, Wash.


I disagree. It's short sighted, bad for our environment and the future, and actually hurts the economy. If the US are not leaders in this transformation we are going to be left behind. There are more jobs in renewable energy than coal. Trump thinks we can recreate the Industrial Age and create jobs. That is simply backward and wrong!

San Luis Obispo, Calif.


If we will not take care of the planet, it will not take care of us. Measuring everything by the money it cost may be an immediate solution but a president of the USA needs to consider long term outcome of his decisions and how it will effect the globe we live on.

South Pasadena, Calif.


I am absolutely thrilled Trump pulled us out of the Paris Climate Agreement. It did nothing for the environment, was extremely punitive to the US, and let the world's biggest polluters (China, India, etc.) off scott free(in fact we would eventually be giving money to China, the world's largest polluter and second-largest economy). The original agreement was a socialist move by a socialist president that hurt the United States and its citizens and put our guaranteed constitutional rights under foreign control.

Pulling out will not only save American jobs, but will create American jobs. Donald Trump was elected in large part because he promised to put this country first. What a novel idea. This was a good first step. The fact that the entire "Global Warming", no wait, "Global Cooling", uhhhh, wait let's call it "Climate Change" is based on extremely flimsy science just adds to reasons we needed to pull out.

Nickelsville, Va.


I think he's a shortsighted, greedy, stupid $%&#*%. As well as his followers.

He WILL rot in hell. And his reign will end in global disgrace for all of us.

Print that in your magazine and sign my name in bold letters.

Sacramento, Calif.


I agree!!!



Though I work on both, I'm make more money on renewable energy and conservation projects than I do on fossil fuel distribution projects. There is a future in environmental projects and I expect this trend to continue, there is no future in non-renewable resources.

The treaty helps push innovation. Deregulation only serves to embolden those willing to make a quick dirty buck at the expense of everyone else.

Worcester, Mass.


Agree. Why are we contributing billions to others for non binding suggestions?Need to resolve our own issues first... It is a lose lose for the US. We can improve our own situation and be an example to others without giving away money to do it.

Sandy Springs, Ga.


I think this action, along with not a few others, is in line with the attempt to place the country back in the 1950s-60s, when things like pollution, racial segregation, etc. were the accepted norm. Smoke-belching industrial smokestacks were regarded as signs of prosperity, as were monstrous automobiles with gigantic, gas-guzzling, polluting engines. This is the American regression that the current president envisions for us, and is striving toward. In my opinion, he is moving us toward unmitigated disaster.

Thank you for asking your readers' opinion on this critical issue. I am a long time subscriber and devotee of LASN.

Springfield, Va.


Terrible. Trump is not truthful. The impacts of ignoring climate change will cost the US much more than the cost of reducing our carbon footprint. There are many more job creating opportunities in the renewable energy sector and the 53k coal miners are not going to increase in number without the Paris Accord. There is no market for coal and Trump is lying to them. Add to that the health impacts and loss of infrastructure and property. He should be ashamed. This president is making us a laughing stock around the world.



I'm strongly in favor of the action, for several reasons.

First, I oppose ASLA National positions of opposing the action on Paris agreement, the POTUS budget and EPA staff actions. This denies the current Administration of their opportunity to do more with less and meet more pressing needs. As a Member, I strongly disagree with ASLA National's position on all 3 topics.

Second, the US has done too much for too many around the world who are not US taxpayers or US citizens while using US tax revenue, plus also using US borrowed funds for past 8 years. The Paris agreement would require continuing to send more funding out of the country, while asking US residents and taxpayers to do less, enjoy less while paying more.

Third, most of the climate change platforms in the Paris agreement are based on a lack of evidence in actual US trends in 2016 and 2017. A large water and snow in CA, WA, ID this year are 1 example. Record salmon returns in Columbia River in WA & OR in 2014 and 2015 are a second example.

Fourth, many of our military costs are associated with a lack of energy independence. The actions Paris agreement, POTUS budget and EPA staff size helps the US realize energy independence and a stronger US economy. We need growth in US GDP of 3.5% per year to pay down the large existing federal debt.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Bellevue, Wash.


This is an extremely short-sighted understanding of the climate science and where the energy industry is currently heading. The United States should be a global leader in the green energy industry and can best do that by embracing the upcoming challenges that climate change presents. Trump's claim that this is a burden to taxpayers misunderstands the economics. The real burden will be adapting to rising ocean levels and rapidly changing weather patterns. Trump is putting our country in grave danger and landscape architects need to be at the forefront of educating the public about the risks of his policies. There is obviously a lot to talk about here, but that's a summary of my current thinking. I hope it's helpful.

Portland, Ore.


I am speechless and fundamentally oppose his position.

We have little or no time in which to address this issue and he has withdrawn at a critical point in time. This means that the states and cities must move to take a stand with the 194 nations who understand what we as a world are facing. His action supports disaster.

I am surprised he is so short sighted on this.

Thank you for asking.



It's short sighted and takes us out of the global community. We will trade off short term jobs for long term business expansion in the clean energy business.

We've got one planet and we continue to pollute it at our own risk.

Ames, Iowa


Bad decision as the US leads other follow. Not sure how you get developing countries on board if we are not will to do this as a county ourselves. It may cost some jobs but one way to circumvent this is give companies in the US credits for improving air quality, efficiency etc. to help offset the higher cost of doing what is right and put tariffs on products that due to manufacturing process cause harm to the world in which we live. Also just like health care if you have informed citizens that know what was done in producing a product they are willing to pay an extra 10-15% more if there is a benefit.

The next part of this conversation/question on global warming is:

What is the health care costs to us as individuals or a society that pay higher premiums due to poor health cause by pollution or higher food costs due to failed crops!

Even if the earth goes through cycles with our climate we as a race cause many of our health issues based on greed and bad decisions to make more profit. Not against capitalism and the American dream but saying there are also ethical ways of doing things and if we follow both sound principles of business and a good ethics (do they even teach that today?) you can still produce products that people want and need but that do not cause various forms of pollution that shorten our lives on this earth in numerous ways.

There is always a cause and effect.

Look at shorter life span when we had coal fired plants throughout the US. Look at the life expectancy of people that live next to a freeway versus those that live in the country. Look at the issues children have when they are raised in a family of smokers that smoke inside the home. One has toxins and polluted air the others do not. I do not remember how many years it shaved off the average life expectancy but it was substantial and that was 20 years ago when I read various articles about this.

All one has to do is evaluate and look through history and pollutants in the air, does not matter the type, it will cause climate change and health related issues.

Scottsdale, Ariz.


Thanks for the opportunity to provide an opinion on this important matter.

He is wrong to break the US's commitment to The Paris Climate Agreement.

1. The US made a commitment to work with nearly every nation in the world to address climate change and pledged to reduce carbon impacts and control the rise in the earths temperature.

2. He is wrong about this costing Americans jobs. It is the opposite. A "green energy economy" is projected to produce millions of jobs in the United States and to make the US a global leader in both research and development and manufacturing of renewable energy components.

3. Major US corporations have already made the shift to this realization and are making investments for long term purchase and production of renewable energy. They recognize this is good for business.

4. Fossil based fuels are a technology and energy source of the past and the US needs to transform their energy portfolio to rely on clean renewable energy.

5. Renewable energy is secure energy and can't be withheld or used as leverage to impact our economy or future.

6. The Paris agreement creates a working partnership of collaboration and sharing of technology and energy investments to secure the health of our planet.

7. All the jobs in the world will mean little if we do not curb climate change and the impacts it is making to our planet. We are losing massive ice coverage in the form of glaciers and the poles as a result of increased temperatures. Ecological zones are shifting as a result of changes in climate. Species are disappearing and new challenges are present effecting our communities as a result of more intense weather events created as a result in warming of the atmosphere.

I could certainly go on and on on why the Paris Climate Agreement is so important to the future of the planet, and the economy it will create as a result of combating the change. If we fail to make investments in this arena you can bet China and others will and if we miss this opportunity they will control our destiny and economy.

Little Rock, Ark.


I agree with Trump's reason as well as the fact that US industries will be burdened with environmental regulations while other "co-signers" such as China,, India, etc. can wipe out all of efforts of the US, UK or EU and they face no penalties. All of this to keep the temperature of the earth from below one percent by 2100! ?

Kiowa, Colo.


STRONGLY OPPOSED. ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE ACROSS ALL SECTORS, LEVELS, COUNTRIES IS CRITICAL. As the number 2 polluter in the world, it isn't fair to the rest of the world for us not address our own contributions.

Napa, Calif.


Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac who, for whatever reason, wants to destroy the world and seems to be doing a pretty good job.

Spokane, Wash.


President Trump is doing what is right for the USA by pulling out of the (illegal) Paris Agreement. First, this types of treaties should be approved by our Congress. Second, while there is no question that we our climate is changing, it is not something that mankind is going to control. There has been climate change since this planet was created and there always will be changes but they are not man made and thus can not be controlled by mankind. The Paris Agreement was an incredible waste of resources and would be damaging to our economy but then that was the goal of our past president. It would cost $110B/year, lost of millions of US industry jobs and not changed the climate at all.

Manhattan, Kansas


Without getting to Political, I have to agree with Mr. Trump, so don't get mad if I disagree.

But my reasoning is a couple fold; one, Obama did not go through congress to adopt this treaty, and if everyone is going to do it, then we all do it together and not have some of the big players do it later and much later! It has to be a level playing field for all and as I understand it, it's not level. So, as with anything, these ideas can be re-negotiated and I believe Mr. Trump will do that. Thanks for my opinion.

Salem, Oregon


I agree with the President, reasoning as follows:

1: There is no way to legitimately enforce compliance by other nations.

2: Let the free market solve the problem (alternative fuels, renewable energy, low impact development, etc.)

3: So many environmental forecast/predictions have not come true, whether it's Ehrlich, McKibbens or Gore. It's hard to accept their predictions when they are so often wrong and so often politically motivated.



I think it's a terrible mistake. He is putting future generations at risk for short-term profit. Clean energy is the future.

Los Angeles


So LASN wants to be stupid and be political like Landscape Architecture Magazine. Not a good idea.

Irvine, Calif.


The current Paris Agreement is one that was negotiated by the past Administration. Trump stated he is willing to join in on this agreement but would like to renegotiate a better deal prior to doing so. He is not against the climate change movement and has always promoted clean energy, he just thinks the US is paying way to much compared to other Countries.

As he campaigned "America will win again" so all he is trying to do is to negotiate a better deal for the US Citizens.

Palm Desert, Calif.


Before asking for people's opinions, I think the responsible thing to do would be to publish the entire Paris Agreement, including the financial structure it laid out.

It would also be valuable to ask what his ideas are for an alternative agreement that he says he wants to negotiate.

Bellbrook, Ohio


His decision is shameful and ridiculous. This a cause the entire world community must be committed to. We only have this Planet to support our civilization. At some point economy won't matter. And as for the economy we should ramp up our focus on renewable self sustaining energy innovations and lead the way to the future economy not go backwards to consumptive pollution filled techniques. He continues to embarass us. Again what a shamful move!!!!

Babylon, NY


Trump is mentally ill.

Absolutely a good idea!

1. Paris was ineffectively structured for its own stated goals.

2. Creation of new bureaucracies is a bad thing.

3. Non-Native State control is a really bad idea- just ask the Euro's!

4. Our past President failed to do the hard work of attempting to build consensus- so this is a fitting end.

And the hubris of the neo-environmental lobby is simply stunning.



Climate change and global warming are well documented, and the evidence is overwhelming. Many think it may be too late to avoid catastrophic change for the next generations, but pulling out tof he Paris Agreement , simply ignoring the facts and denying there is any problem, is the worst catastrophe of all. We won't need to worry about jobs and tax burdens - we won't have a planet that supports life as we know it, or perhaps no life at all.

Ignorance is not bliss - climate change is here, and our planet is already hurting.

Maybe we should park Trump and the naysayers on an ice flow where they can watch the world melt away right under their feet.

Everett, Wash.


I have no printable opinion on this subject. Sorry.

Corona, Calif.


Why are you getting into politics?

Indianapolis, Ind.


Good move.



I'm all in with Trump decision. Make America Great Again!!!!!!!!!!!!

Charleston, S.C.


Comment Box is loading comments...

Search Site by Story Keywords

August 23, 2019, 1:30 pm PDT

Website problems, report a bug.
Copyright © 2019 Landscape Communications Inc.
Privacy Policy