He has done this despite entreaties from other world leaders, fellow Americans and  multinational corporations.

This is a major blow to efforts to contain global warming, as America is the second largest polluter on the planet, being responsible for a quarter of the world's pollution.

Fortunately, world leaders' reactions have indicated an increased determination to tackle global warming with or without American support.

There is also evidence  that a large section of the American public does not agree with Trump's decision and will remain committed to honouring their commitment to reducing emissions, despite presidential announcements to the contrary.

The reason given by Trump for withdrawing America from the Paris Agreement is that the agreement was not in the best interests of the American people.

He declares he was elected by the people of Pittsburg, not the people of Paris. The Mayor of Pittsburg was quick to point out that his administration would follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement “for our people, our economy and our future.”

This sentiment was reinforced by the U.S. Conference of Mayors who said it strongly opposed Trump's action and vowed that American mayors would continue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. states such as California, New York and Washington have vowed to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will continue engaging in the international climate agreement process.

Many sections of the American public are also becoming aware of the economic, social and environmental advantages of embracing renewable energy and committing to an emissions reduction target.

Nobody wants to be dragged back to a fossil-fueled future. Donald Trump is withdrawing from a determined international movement to save the planet from the worst effects of dangerous climate change.

He is also flying in the face of the agendas of many Americans. It would appear that internationally and locally people are going their own way despite what he says.

Trump has dealt himself out of the climate debate. The most damage done by his decision could be to the president himself.

THE type of economics we are fed daily by professional economists and the media concerning housing completely baffles me.

Thus we are told by the OECD that a "large" fall in house prices will threaten our whole economy because it would reduce spending and reduce construction. But the main determinant of high house prices is demand by investors who expect capital gains.

And those investors with most to gain already have high incomes and also benefit from offsets to income tax. What do those people spend this money on? Newly constructed houses? New start-up industries or shares? Unlikely.

My guess is they spend on more existing houses, luxury goods manufactured overseas, and overseas holidays.

In the process people who just want a house for themselves and their families are denied this basic need, and are forced to pay ludicrously high mortgages and rents.