I wouldn't be so sure, if Rex Tillerson was in favor of staying in Paris, why wouldn't the governor of Texas?

In case nobody noticed, former TX gov. Rick Perry did speak out on this, and he was in favor of the Paris accord, also.

Shocking that Trump would go against the current head of Exxon, the ex-head of Exxon who is also his Sec. of State, and another very conservative oil-state politician in Rick Perry.

http://time.com/4754578/rick-perry-paris-agreement-trum-clim...

I've read some informed speculation that this was done in a fit of pique because of criticism from Angela Merkel: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/paris-and-the-battle-of-...

"informed speculation" aka BS.

It couldn't have had anything to do with the 22 senators petitioning him to drop it or the campaign promise he made...

Despite that, he was still considering staying in and reportedly has been torn on the subject for weeks now.

I wish he had remained in Paris, too, but they link is just utter drivel.

There is absolutely nothing in that opinion piece to back up the author's claim.

The author didn't actually make a "claim". Josh Marshall was speculating, and he labeled it as such.

But there is quite a bit of support for this line of reasoning now, after the fact, actually.

I believe Tillerson wanted to stay in Paris so the United States would be involved in the program and shape it's direction. I'd say that's quite a bit different than voluntarily taking on the pledges for Texas.

Maybe Abbott will surprise us though

Have you been to Texas?

Given the amount of oil related industries there, it's not in the state's interest to regulate carbon, which is mostly a proxy for taxing oil and gas.

Additionally, it is a state with a large hard conservative population. They hate climate change.

True, but the oil will run out. Ask the former coal mine towns what happens then.

The Texas governor has constituents and voters that hold him accountable.

Rex doesn't have to try to get re-elected.