1) Within this context, why do you think the U.S recently pulled out the Paris Climate Agreement?
Global warming has caused a lot of reactions, and not always these reactions have been unanimous on the political level. In the context of global warming, the United States always supported the position that would counter the process in its roots. Moreover, it was granted a role of the leader in such international organizations as the United Nations. However, in the recent changes within the US politics, the new US Administration took a different course of action. In particular, during the Presidential campaign, Donald Trump noted several times that he opposes the concept of the global warming as such. Moreover, as the person of the highest leadership in the country he also stated that most of the arguments proving that the global warming was real, did not really work. Hence, according to him, the concept of global warming was not valid, and the United States shall not support the actions aimed at preventing the process.
When the Paris Agreement, the main resolution aimed at decreasing the amount of greenhouse effects on the international level was adopted, Donald Trump made a statement claiming that the US is getting out. The fact that 195 other nations signed Paris Agreement did not sound convincing to the current President of the United States. Instead, he claimed that other countries look for different ways of exploiting the US as a country and that the concept of the global warming is a complete myth. However, one shall be aware that the realistic process of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is a lengthy process. In particular, the United States would not be able to withdraw sooner than 2020 due to numerous bureaucratic procedures.
To sum up, the US did not support Paris Agreement mainly for political reasons.
2) Do those who made that decision have a reality-based reason for doing so?
Essentially, there are several motives which drove the decisions aimed at withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. As mentioned above, one of the decision was a purely political judgement in the course of the Presidential campaign. The message against supporting preventative actions of the global warming, were conveyed to the citizens as additional spending and additional taxation. However, it was not a reality-based judgment, as the US citizens contribute to the functionality of various international organizations, including the United Nations, the key stakeholder in that process. Moreover, during the press-conference followed after the Paris Agreement, the White House officials did not specify what measures of the new accord would be acceptable to them, and to what terms they would be able to agree to. That is why, the position of the United States bore a lot of misunderstanding on the highest political level.
Without a doubt, there is also an economic cost related to the implementation of Paris Agreement, and that would be a more valid argument to make. In particular, the United States is known as one of the leaders of the coal production, which causes a lot of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. As the country is one of the main polluters on the world arena, the reality-based solution would then be to decrease the amount of coal production or pay for the environmental cost. The current United States government did not communicate this message to the US citizens clearly, and most of the statements seemed politically driven. Hence, the solution chosen by Donald Trump aims at continuing to support the United States as a main coal producer, despite the fact that the country significantly pollutes the atmosphere.