Trump may make the national optics look bad, but that doesn't change the optics completely at the state and city level.

For instance, on the renewable energy angle, according to the American Wind Energy Organization, five states now regularly generate 20%+ of their energy from wind. (http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber...) That number would've been unthinkable 10 years ago.

(Note that the windy states tend to be Republican voting rural mid-west ones. That doesn't mean that Trump isn't going to stop mocking wind energy (as he just recently did). Rather, it does mean there is bipartisan support in these states for wind energy, and that Trump's negative comments on wind in Iowa didn't go down very well with Iowans and Iowa politicians from both sides of the aisle -- https://apnews.com/a2b500b82d5a44eeb9759ca31d0b4a33)

Having a national leader that seems hostile to anything environmental certainly doesn't help matters, but it's not all doom and gloom.

A fake treaty based on hype and slogans. whose temperature goals when overlaid with existing models shows no change. a fake treaty which allows each nation to set their own goals, change them at will, and no fines or similar mechanisms to insure compliance? A treaty which then veered off into rules on gender equity, biodiversity, disabled people, migrants, and a just transition of work forces.

as in, it was propaganda act by politicians who used ignorance of what it stood for so you would think they were doing something about it when they were doing absolutely nothing. it had no power of enforcement because they could not even come to an agreement of who would be allowed to enforce it. when you let the fox set the rules the chickens outcome does not change.

it was worse than no treaty. with no treaty people can be brought back to the table and iron out one that has limits that apply equally to all nations with an agreed to enforcement. (per capita limits are the means some countries used to skirt any impact they have on the world)

Luckily for us and the environment, that's more a talking point than a policy point.

Until that actually causes the US to stop increasing the proportion of renewable energy, I'm skeptical it's an issue.

I'm curious if you believe there is any room for people who care about the environment, but thought the Paris agreement was a waste of money and resources?