Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says he is disappointed but not surprised by President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.
Mr Turnbull says Australia remains committed to achieving its Paris targets.
But some Liberal politicians are celebrating President Trump's move.
As Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sees it, the United States' decision to withdraw from the agreement is disappointing but he, like many others, could see it coming.
"It was entirely as expected and as predicted and as promised by him. And in the light of that, and in the light of that knowledge, we are committed to our Paris commitments, our 2030 commitments, as I said, of a 26 per cent to 28 per cent reduction in emissions."
That reduction target is based on Australia's 2005 levels.
Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg says the US withdrawal needs to be put in perspective.
"The US is not the world's largest emitter today. The biggest emitter is China. China, India, Japan, a number of other trading partners of Australia, have reiterated their commitment in recent days. I noticed the business community in the US, the big energy companies -- ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, (and,) here in Australia, BHP, Dow -- they all reiterate their commitment to Paris as well."
The United States ranks second to China in carbon-dioxide emissions, though, and some Liberals in Australia are calling for the momentum towards renewable energy to be slowed.
One backbencher has labelled the Paris agreement "flawed."
Liberal MP Craig Kelly says an agreement that weakens the United States and strengthens China and Russia is clearly not in Australia's interest.
And former Abbott Government frontbencher Eric Abetz says Australia must not sacrifice Australian jobs and push up household living expenses to be part of the agreement.
He says it is embarking on what he calls a politically correct feel-good exercise on the world stage which will do nothing for the environment.
Labor's spokesman on climate change, Mark Butler, says Mr Trump's decision is, indeed, consistent with his previous comments.
But he says Australia must stand firm.
"He had, after all, described climate change during the last presidential election as a hoax invented by the Chinese to take manufacturing jobs away from America. But it's critically important now the rest of the world reaffirm its commitment to continuing on with the momentum that was established at the Paris climate conference."
Professor Andrew Macintosh from the Australian National University's College of Law in Canberra, says the Paris agreement was already weak.
But he says that was because it was shaped to placate the United States.
"The Paris climate agreement was very much shaped by the American interests and by the desire to ensure that it didn't tie down America or America's economic interests. As a consequence of that desire amongst most of the major players to placate the United States, the end outcome was relatively weak. The agreement doesn't compel any nation to do anything in relation to cutting its emissions other than having a target and reporting on that target, or that mix of policies."
Australia's chief scientist, Alan Finkel, is scheduled to deliver a report to government next week which will, among other things, outline ways for the nation to reach its Paris target.
The report is expected to canvass an Emissions Intensity Scheme or reworking Australia's renewable-energy targets as the best way forward.
