By the Ides of March, a general and an oilman were the only members of President Trump's cabinet to have publicly acknowledged the reality of man-made climate change. In the case of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, this included lukewarm support for the United States to remain part of the Paris climate accord, the landmark 2015 agreement that saw 194 countries agree to reduce their carbon emissions.

On its face, this made no logical sense: Tillerson came to the job from ExxonMobil, the world's fourth-largest oil and gas company, where he was the CEO. Exxon has never been very interested in acknowledging that burning fossil fuels has yielded rising global temperatures, which the company emphasized by funding denial of climate science for 27 years. Tillerson even used a totally above-board email alias to discuss climate issues—"Wayne Tracker"—the only name more Texan than Rex Wayne Tillerson.

But a report today from The New York Times offers some clarity. The Trump administration is now leaning towards remaining in the Paris climate accord in part because of the demise of Steve Bannon. In his place, Son-in-Law-in-Chief Jared Kushner has a clearer path to his father-in-law's ear, as have other advisers with less hardcore conservative ideologies than Bannon. Their voices calling for the U.S. to remain in the deal appear to have the edge over, say, Scott Pruitt, the EPA chief who can often be found suing the EPA, and who has publicly called for an "exit" of the agreement.

Pool Getty Images

But before you start preparing the post-consumer confetti, consider that the Times sees senior White House climate policy adviser George David Banks as another key factor in the equation. Banks, we learn, "has advocated staying in the agreement while replacing the Obama plan with a weaker, more industry-friendly pledge." Because the agreement is non-binding, this is possible. The effect would essentially be to do the ExxonMobils of the world a favor, cutting back on the regulations that actually reduce their environmental impact, while avoiding the international backlash that would follow a full withdrawal from the agreement.

"If the U.S. were to pull out, it would do so in the context that would invite trade reprisals," Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, told the Times. "It could lead to a carbon tariff trade war." That would involve countries who tax carbon emissions imposing carbon tariffs on imports of American goods, which would devastate heavy industrial polluters, like steel and cement manufacturers that send their products abroad. Right now, the European Union has a carbon tax, and China, Mexico, and Canada are working on similar initiatives. All of these are major American trading partners.

By some coincidence, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, and other major oil and gas producers have backed the United States remaining in the agreement. Surely it has nothing to do with the fact that they are global corporations that do business across borders, and so are particularly sensitive to tariffs and other barriers to free trade. And surely Tillerson's position has nothing to do with that of his former employer.

So it appears that the Trump administration's approach may be to remain in the agreement by name only, while largely ignoring the United States' actual commitments. President Obama pledged to reduce our carbon footprint 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, but his successor is already well on the way to reneging on that. President Trump has instructed Friend of the EPA Scott Pruitt to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, a set of regulations that—in concert with organic economic forces generated by the rise of cheap natural gas—were designed to shutter hundreds of irredeemably dirty coal-burning power plants. The plan was considered the United States' primary vehicle for meeting its reduction goals.

This may be the first politically savvy move this president will make. It just so happens it might also doom the world. After all, many experts hold that the Paris agreement only gets us halfway.

Jack Holmes Politics Editor Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io