During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump was a prominent critic of the deal, promising to "cancel" it, and this week he refused to sign a statement endorsing the agreement. "It's possible to provide the energy the world needs while also addressing the climate challenge".
Bannon, who used to lead the far-right website Breitbart News, is generally opposed to worldwide governance and climate change policy.
It is far from clear how the Trump administration could actually "exit" the Paris agreement, assuming that it wants to.
The meeting comes ahead of a summit of the Group of Seven wealthy nations in late May, which White House spokesman Sean Spicer said was the deadline for the decision.
The Paris accord, an worldwide agreement to lower carbon emissions, places no emissions-reduction obligations on China and India until 2030, Pruitt stated, adding that all US costs from the agreement are "front-loaded".
Seeking to salvage ties, US and Russian Federation agree on Syria probe
The Secretary of State described Russia's alleged involvement in the 2016 vote as a "serious issue" and "one that we know" about. President DonaldTrump (R) at a press conference at the White House in Washington D.C., the United States, on February 15, 2017.
"Big corporations and Wall Street did not elect President Trump and are out of touch with the economic realities that face people who work in resource and energy-intensive industries", said Myron Ebell, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of energy and climate policy who headed Trump's transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The other advisers have yet to take an official stance.
According to Politico, Bannon and Pruitt want Trump to withdraw the US from the agreement, while Kushner and Tillerson stand on the opposite side of the issue.
Most everyone in the building voted Trump in the election due to his promise of bringing coal jobs back. In light of the recent actions, what previous policies will remain and what will change? But it seems unlikely that the debate could lead to a compromise in which the USA stays in the Paris agreement while reducing its commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental Defense Fund Senior Attorney Alex Hanafi said he was less certain it's impossible for the U.S.to reduce its commitments, but either pulling out of the deal or weakening the U.S.'s commitments would provoke a negative global reaction. A key argument is that the US can stay in the agreement without satisfying its pledge or maintaining regulations created to help achieve the target, said one administration official.
The agreement's text specifically allows a country to adjust its greenhouse gas targets if it is "enhancing its level of ambition", but not to reduce promises. Any diplomatic blowback from global allies would be short-lived, argues Chris Horner, a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. Some coal companies and Republicans believe Obama's Paris pledge can be substituted with subsidies emissions control technology.