Soon after President Trump announced that the United States would back out of the Paris climate accord, several large companies based in the United States that had supported the international pact said they were disappointed by the decision and would continue their environmental efforts.
And two chief executives who sat on Mr. Trump’s economic advisory council — Elon Musk and Robert A. Iger — said they were leaving that group because they disagreed with the exit from the Paris agreement.
While Mr. Trump said the decision to exit the deal was made to protect American jobs — a contention that environmental groups have disputed — some large companies had urged the president to stay in the accord.
Twenty-five companies, including Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft, bought full-page ads in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post last month to argue their case. Some of those companies, and others with similar views in the technology, energy and engineering sectors, reacted quickly on Thursday.
But so did some companies, particularly in the coal industry, that supported Mr. Trump’s decision.
Tesla and SpaceX
Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX, said he would leave an advisory council for Mr. Trump.
Robert A. Iger, Disney’s chief executive, also said he would no longer be an advisory council member.
Jeff Immelt, G.E.’s chairman and chief executive, said in a Twitter message:
Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive, wrote on his Facebook page:
Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is bad for the environment, bad for the economy, and it puts our children’s future at risk.
For our part, we’ve committed that every new data center we build will be powered by 100% renewable energy.
Stopping climate change is something we can only do as a global community, and we have to act together before it’s too late.
Twitter and Square
Jack Dorsey, the chief executive of both companies, wrote on Twitter:
Sundar Pichai, the chief executive, said on Twitter:
Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive, had never used Twitter before but addressed the exit from the accord in his first tweet:
Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president, said in a statement that the company was disappointed in the decision.
We believe that continued U.S. participation benefits U.S. businesses and the economy in important and multiple ways. A global framework strengthens competitiveness for American businesses. It creates new markets for innovative clean technologies, from green power to smart grids to cloud-enabled solutions. And by strengthening global action over time, the Agreement reduces future climate damage to people and organizations around the world.
From a letter to employees by Tim Cook, the chief executive, obtained by The New York Times:
I spoke with President Trump on Tuesday and tried to persuade him to keep the U.S. in the agreement. But it wasn’t enough.
I want to reassure you that today’s developments will have no impact on Apple’s efforts to protect the environment. We power nearly all of our operations with renewable energy, which we believe is an example of something that’s good for our planet and makes good business sense as well.
The company released a statement in a series of tweets:
Amazon continues to support the Paris climate agreement and action on climate change. We believe that robust clean energy and climate policies can support American competitiveness, innovation, and job growth. We remain committed to putting our scale and inventive culture to work in ways that are good for the environment and our customers.
The Ohio-based company, one of the largest coal-producing companies in the country and a prominent supporter of Mr. Trump, praised the decision. The chief executive, Robert E. Murray, said in a statement:
We applaud President Trump’s steadfast leadership and his delivery on this important campaign commitment. Indeed, complete withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord is an integral part of President Trump’s energy agenda.
In following through on his promise, President Trump is supporting America’s uncompromising values, saving coal jobs, and promoting low-cost, reliable electricity for Americans and the rest of the world.
Andrew Salzberg, who oversees transportation policy and research at Uber, wrote on Medium:
Today’s announcement from President Trump that the United States will not honor the agreement is a huge disappointment. Addressing rising temperatures is vital to ensuring the continued health and prosperity of populations across the globe.
Uber will continue to do our part and we implore the President of the United States to not work against us, but rather join us. Let’s drive change.
The company said in a statement:
Climate change is an international problem that requires an international solution, and we believe it is important for the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore IBM supported — and still supports — U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement. This agreement requires all participating countries to put forward their best efforts on climate change as determined by each country. IBM believes that it is easier to lead outcomes by being at the table, as a participant in the agreement, rather than from outside it.
The company, a multinational coal-mining giant based in St. Louis, said in a statement:
We believe that abiding by the accord, without significant changes, would have substantially impacted the U.S. economy, increased electricity costs and required the power sector to rely on less diverse and more intermittent energy. Peabody continues to advocate for greater use of technology to meet the world’s need for energy security, economic growth and energy solutions through high efficiency low emissions coal-fueled power plants and research and development funding for carbon capture.
David MacLennan, Cargill’s chief executive, said in a statement:
It is extremely disappointing. Exiting international accords like the Paris Agreement will negatively impact trade, economic vitality, the state of our environment, and relationships amongst the world community. And it positions the U.S. as an outlier on this important issue. It would have resulted in U.S. economic growth and job creation.