tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN June 1, 2017 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
and don't acknowledge that the 4.5 billion year old planet has gone through massive climate change based on natural effects. >> it has gone through climate change, absolutely, but not to the degree that we've seen in the last century. >> absolutely incorrect. when you look at climate change, the most dramatic ice ages, warming and cooling of the planet, all happen before man was even around, for the most part, and even when man was here, man was only burning fires. so we have had carbon in the air 600 times what we have now and so it's gone up and down. i'm not saying we should forgive and discount pollution, but we should not be so alarmists that we're willing to give up all of the american jobs based on computer modeling that's been historically inaccurate. >> i want to read this from the nasa website. the current warning trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely and that's greater than 95%
preceding at a rate unprecedented over decades to millennia. >> are we wrong? >> why did we change the name from global change and i can tell you, if if you look at the details of the modeling and projections, they have bouroudjian many of the people who want to control pollution, they will tell you that's nonsense. 100 foot rise in the seas in 100 years, they are higher than they were and took thousands and thousands of years. >> answer my question about
whether they are wrong, the scientist gls peop scientists. >> people who say we're going to have 100 foot rises are wrong and the climb ma toy have been and it's had to be reformulated because the numbers that you put in don't add up. >> i'm not talking about the most dire and extreme predictions but even a rise of five or ten feet can have a huge, disruptive effect. >> it's completely unknown whether it will be five inches or five feet. until you have evidence that shows that we really are in such alarmist straits. >> so wait for it to happen? >> no. but you should have evidence and base things on evidence and for the american worker that makes 20, $25,000 a year, working in the energy sector, to tell them that you're not going to have a job and china doesn't have to
obey the same rules. the whole reason the paris accord should be done is not because of climate change or whatever you want to call it, it should be a debate over whether it's fair and for america to be the one cutting back on carbon and china does nothing. is it fair that russia gets to increase their carbon output by 50%? that's not fair to america or the american workers and i'm betting that the viewership will say we'd like to have jobs and we don't want these alarmists who are saying that we're going to have mass extinction. we don't want to have these people in charge. they were in charge the past eight years and tried to kill most of the jobs in my state. >> senator paul, thank you for your time. and we know that there are
people on his team, including his daughter ivanka, including rex tillerson who used to work for exxonmobil which does not want the u.s. to pull out of this agreement, lobbying for him to stay in it. what is going through the president's mind? >> can i say before i answer that, i thought that interview was so fascinating and right on by the fact that you challenged him on some of the climate change and he articulated the point that they are going to try to make. that's a fascinating interview. as far as the president goes, i am told that we know this has been debated eternally. he's not been moveable and it's because he believes -- i'm told by a source who has talked to him, he's 10,000% sure he has to do this. why? he's convinced that america, that the deal is bad for america and that the u.s. is a laughing stock for participating in
agreements that he believes has no efficacy and he can then negotiate a better deal. i mean -- >> but why is the u.s. a laughing stock? because the u.s. is -- the mindset of the obama administration was that the u.s. over history cumulatively is responsible for a -- not a majority but a disproportionate percentage of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore the u.s., also being the wealthiest country in the world, should have a disproportionate role. that's why, in the president's view -- >> no. that appears to be a separate issue. from his perspective, the notion of the u.s. being a laughing stock is it's been one thing that he's been consistent of. >> about every deal? >> about every deal.
he's be he believed this, that the u.s. kept getting into bad deal after bad deal, not just trade agreements but agreements like this. and when he talks about laughing stock, it's not about the substance of the issue, not about the fact that the u.s. does produce, you know, more of the problems than any other country but it's about the way -- >> historically? >> historically. but it's by the way that this deal was done. >> he felt that way about nafta. he withdrew from the ttp. >> congress had done that already. >> exactly. >> but with this, correct me if i'm wrong, he has to, the way that the treaty works, he has to pull out because it wasn't -- it wasn't considered -- >> and an option to pull out faster, by the way. >> pull out of the paris agreement? >> he could have pulled out by pulling out of the u.n. framework and that would have allowed him to withdraw faster. now he can only withdraw in 2020. so this may have been a more
moderate option. i mean, i use that term advise bl able. >> i was sitting here for the few hairs i have left on my head. >> where? >> two right there. >> they came out. >> i pulled them out listening to senator rand paul. this is what is happening. you have an american president now taking a meat ax to the only american industry that is growing. the clean energy sector in america is producing jobs and the clean energy sector is growing at ten times the rest of the economy. you already have more solar workers and coal miners and you have more wind energy workers than you have coal miners and more americans working in smart batteries than coal miners. this is an american success story that the president has turned his back on. worse than that, if you say that
this is a bad deal, what the brilliance of donald trump as a business person is hard for me to fathom. but every other business leader in the country says it's a great deal. and i'll tell you why. it's a great deal because you just took 120 countries and you made them into customers for american clean energy companies. if you let those companies grow and it comes from clean energy, it comes from the united states and green energy. this is an incredible opportunity and the president is against it. >> i was laughing when you said that because the fastest growing industry is not clean energy. it's the shale and oil and gas revolution. >> right. >> that's responsible for the recovery that we had. if we didn't have shale, oil and gas, we wouldn't have had a recovery at all. we have 10 million americans
employed directly or indirectly from their own gas industry. the intent of this deal over time is not to destroy the coal industry. >> no, oh, my god. >> no. >> why is shell for it and bp for it and chevron for it? >> let me make one other point. the fact that we put more carbon out more than anyone else, it's because we're the largest in the world. energy is the massive resource. we have more oil, more gas, 500 years worth of goal than any other country in the world. this is so anti-american to basically say we're going to shut down our energy when china is not doing it and india is not doing it. >> why are american energy companies for this deal, then? >> rex tillerson, too. >> bp for this -- >> that's a good question, stephen. just to bring up the wider
perspective, it's not just american fuel and petroleum industry companies that are in favor of this. a lot -- not all, but a lot of american companies are in favor of this deal. why? >> i think partly they want to be seen as good corporate citizens and they want to -- it's kind of a marketing campaign. but the point here is, it's a marketing campaign. exxon is going to stop producing oil and gas, right? >> no, they are not. >> i'm saying they are not going to. but answer this one question. how in the world is it going to help the global climate situation even if we shut down all of our energy when china and india are building dozens and dozens of coal plants right now. don't listen to what they say. look at what they are doing. they are already out of complete compliance. >> let's bring other people on this panel. >> i'm not going to get into that but dana mentioned one of the reasons and it's true.
100% of donald trump's campaign was that these are bad deals. i'm a businessman. i make good deals. this is consistent with what he campaigned on. the other point i would make is, i always come back to this. the steve bannon white board. remember, we got a picture of that, that he writes down he had a bunch of stuff removed, massive white board and wrote down all of the promises that donald trump made, which were many. i think donald trump, and this was a bannon argument, he's on the we need to get ou t of this accord. you must do the people that you told them what you were going to do. that's what i think motivates this more than anything else is this belief that -- forget what we said and forget the fake news and all of that stuff. at the end of the day, the way in which donald trump will be judged, both by voters and
history more broadly is he said he was going to do all of those things on the white board. how many of them steve bannon says he puts big x's next to things that he's done. >> we just broke a promise an hour ago. >> and he's done some of that. but i will say, the story of the first 70 days of the trump presidency was, wow, he's doing what he said he was going to do. travel ban. this is the bannon influence which is do what you said you were going to do. >> do you think it's accurate that history will look at this work by president trump and see it as a campaign promise fulfilled or counterintuitive to what you said, chris, a more broader look at the effects of the environment and international relations? >> yeah. i think it will certainly be looked at in perhaps both context, in the context of the republican party and if you think about what presidents have done when they get into office
after democrats, they typically roll back regulations. ronald reagan famously ripped the solar panels off the white house that jimmy carter had put in. it's a huge agreement between many of the countries, almost all of the countries across the globe. but i do think it's in keeping with trump's brand to do it in this way. he has told all of his followers that they were losers and taken advantage of by people in office and by globalists and the elite and so to make a big deal out of this now -- >> you know, look, donald trump was crystal clear in this campaign about what he was going to do. he was going to promote american energy, put coal miners back into jobs. hillary went around the country and say i'm all in on global warming. my point is, this election was, in a large part, a referendum on the global climate change agenda. the voters rejected it.
>> i don't want to get into that. obviously -- because obviously. >> 51% of republicans actually want this deal. >> yeah. >> keep that in mind. 51%. >> it did not win the popular vote and i think that's significant every time it's brought up. let's go to fareed zakaria because i know there's an international perspective on this that's important. >> jake, i think that in it proves to be what we think it is, this is the day that the united states resigned as the leader of the free world. it's nothing short of that. the irresponsibility of this act is breathtaking because the paris climate accords are extraordinarily negotiabl extraordinarily flexible. that's why countries that have
governed that have signed on. there are 194 other countries that have signed on to this, including the countries that donald trump keep saying always beat us in these agreements. they are all in. >> let me interrupt because i want to ask, what other point made by senator paul and stephen moore here that china and india are getting out of control and building more polluting plants. >> under any agreement there's going to be some cheating. people accused united states of undermining the world trade organization all the time and there's a process that you put in place to adjudicate that and when found they can be fined. the idea that that's a reason to never engage in any kind of cooperation -- look, if the chinese were not signed on to the paris accords, they would be polluting many times more. there are good studies that point out that china is actually
overshooting many of the targets it has arrived at. i also want to point out, on this issue of the jobs of the future, i think van did an excellent job. but it's 194 countries that are potential markets, not just 125. but the problem with the kind of statistics that rand paul and steve moore were providing is we all have google. so from the -- this january's department of energy report, united states' solar industry employs more workers than coal, oil and natural gas combined. it grew 25% last year. these are the industries that the united states can dominate, as long as you engage in digging up oil, natural gas, that's opened up lots of different countries. it's not just the middle east, it's venezuela, russia, the country that benefits the most perhaps from all of this. we would own the future if we
could continue to dominate this. so it's bad geo politically and bad economically and does not dilute american sovereignty. this is a lose, lose, lose for the united states and for a young presidency, it's already the single most irresponsible act that the president has taken. >> let me go to clarissa ward who is covering a lot of the international response due to this pending decision. obviously syria and nicaragua are the countries that have not signed on to the paris agreement as of now so we're not expecting a chorus of approving songs for the decision president trump is about to announce. but what have you been hearing so far in terms of feedback? >> jake, there's sort of two stages of grief. the first stage is this burning realization that, oh, my goodness, this is really happening. the u.s. is slowly but surely defer its global leadership and
as leader of the free world and it's challenging the alliances that have traditionally held the u.s. together for decades. so we saw language la merkel recent low who said we can no longer necessarily depend on the u.s. and i think that's something hitting particularly europe very hard indeed. then you have the kind of second stage of grief, if you like, that we don't need you anyway and maybe we're better off without you anyway because there are concerns that even if the u.s. had stayed apart of the accord, that they were already working the white house to sort of undermine some of the progress and initiative put together by the obama administration and because the paris accord is not legally binding, that the end result would be that the u.s. or the white house or president trump would slowly seek to dilute any
impact that the u.s. would have and a third is whereby we see them say, okay, u.s., if you want to hand over and queue china, and there's a big eu/china climate accord being signed tomorrow and there's a sense that china stands to make billions and billions of dollars off of kind of leading the charge in terms of green energy, in terms of all of the money making that can be done through green initiatives. so i think we're seeing sort of three different stages of grief ending with sort of anger and bitterness but at the end of the day, jake, the sentiment that is underminuting it, really, is a huge amount of sadness and disappoint that the u.s. does appear to be saying america first and that's it, guys. >> clarissa ward in london,
thank you. van, why does this have to mean that the u.s. is seeding anything in terms of manufacturing green products or green jobs in exporting them abroad? we have a private energy sector that is able to do whatever it wants to do. >> well, there's a couple things. first of all, rules matter. market signals matter. i don't think people have understood -- we talked about science and climate and polar bears and all of that sort of stuff and in fact we are in the middle of an extinction event. but let's talk about how america gets to be great again. let's talk about putting america first, let's talk about that. this is the way that you do it. you get the rest of the world bought into a carbon constrained growth strategy and pull the rug from out of the middle east and they say where are we going to get this clean energy technology? have you ever heard of tesla or
california? you are literally throwing away customers. here's the other thing. you could put the entire rustbelt back to work. i'm about to cry just building the wind turbines to send around the world. we don't want to do that. it's tribal. we're no longer looking at actual facts and economics. it's a tribal signal that i'm a good conservative if i poo-poo this stuff. it's terrible. >> do you think that the democratic party has failed? >> yes. >> in explaining -- >> yes. >> i didn't even finish my question. i could talk about the wonder woman movie. in explaining to what president trump on the campaign trail would call the forgotten man and women, the people in ohio, wisconsin, michigan. >> the tragedy right now is you have this working-class trump people looking for hope and opportunity. how am i going to get a job?
and the jobs could come from the wind turbines. why do you laugh? >> it's the manufacturers, the trumpers, the coal miners that are the victims of this. they are the first people to get laid off. it's not university professors. >> let me help you. you're just wrong on this. here's the deal. guess what, there are -- it's going to be very important for coal miners to go to work in appalachia, in particular, if you do this agenda. and i'll tell you why. if you build wind turbines, you've got to have a thermal capacity from your coal to do it. in other words, you could actually, for a long period of time, have coal miners fueling the building of the wind turbines. >> we have 500 years worth of coal. we have clean coal, the cleanest coal in the world, the technology that is incredible. by the way, let's talk about clean energy. we have a clean energy. it's called natural gas. it's the reason the united states has reduced its carbon
emissions. >> let's talk about that. here's what i love. you guys can't have it both ways, sir. do you like fracking and natural gas or do you like coal? because the reason -- >> we should do both. >> but this is what i'm not -- this is the sort of nonsense they got away with for the whole campaign. you cannot be for fracking, dropping the price of natural gas below coal and you want more fracking and more coal. that's like saying you want more water and fire. >> you're right, the low natural gas prices hurt the coal industry. you know what else it is killing? the wind industry. literally, five times more expensive per kilowatt hour. and by the way, we have another one. nuclear power. i don't see you talking about nuclear power and it emits no carbon emissions. >> can i just say, i still don't have an answer to the question of why withdrawing from this
treaty means that the united states' private sector will lose out on a whole bunch of jobs. >> i'll tell you this. you will have four things that happen. states, cities, tribes and some industries will try to push forward anyway. what matters, though, is if you have a clear market signal that if you're going to build out your energy sector around the world, or if you're going to build it out to the united states, you're going to have to do it in a carbon restrained way. that gives you a more solid target -- >> what kind of industry in the world -- >> you just said is that energy is special. >> right. >> energy is the most -- energy is the most important contributor to the economy. how you do energy is a matter not just of markets but also of policy and the policy signals matter. what you're doing now is creating uncertainty in the clean energy market. that freezes up innovation, capital and costs you jobs.
period. >> but if 194 countries are still part of this and china may take advantage of it, why can the united states still not take advantage of this. >> here's the thing. he's rolling the dice. if the dominos start to fall -- in other words, if -- >> other countries pull out? >> you also need new technology in order to get them off the ground. >> that is not true. >> yes, it is. >> i want to bring fareed in. he's at a disadvantage because he's not able to jump in. but here, jump in. >> i wanted to say, jake, let's be honest. what we are saying is that clean energy does require government subsidies right now. in that it is not different from any infant industry of importance. give you an example. the united states now dominates the computer industry, the internet, the whole information
age. do you know why? because in the 1950s, the government of the united states bought more than half of all computer chips produced. they were bought at extra o extraorbinant costs and then they started to buy the mainframe computers up to the point where the costs go down. that is what is happening in clean technology. that's what germany does, that's what china does because they see that the future is going to be a land of clean energy and they want to dominate it. so just as the united states did with many technologies in the past, which produced the internet, which produced gps and every leading technology company of today, the united states has to provide some market signals and if you take away the paris a accords, you take away that surety. that's the danger here, someone who will dominate these clean energy sectors and they may get
some government support. i'd rather it be here than china. >> fareed, i love you, but it's comical to say that the wind industry is -- we've had windmills for a thousand years. come on. >> that's your argument, steve? that's your argument? >> you said windmills and then fossil fuels. >> and, steve, there was an abicus in china 2,000 years ago. it's slightly different than the wind on the street. you're talking about in holland a thousand years ago. i don't know where to begin. >> gloria? >> i'll defer to van and then i'll go. >> here's the thing. first of all, the fracking revolution, which is an extraordinary revolution, all of that r & d was done on the government dime. that is true. also, when you're talking about the windmills versus wind
turbines, they are boeing level engineering. it's like a jet engine in the sky. and again, what's so great about that stuff, american workers can make that stuff. what i'm desperate about is i think that the democrats and the environmentalists have done a horrible job of making the economic case on this stuff. and as a result, it's going to cost 6 million jobs. that's complete hokus. that study has been disapprove ina million times. they believe it because they never hear us talking about the work or health benefits and the jobs of the future. >> can i step back for a moment? i know you guys don't want to do that but i think the treaty itself sent a signal worldwide that it's time to clean up. we've all got to do this. it's time to clean up and i
think by the united states withdrawing -- and again, i'd point out, this is not until 2020. it's actually a day after the next presidential election that this was taking place. this is not a small point. but that this is a signal -- us withdrawing and becoming along with nicaragua, which didn't think this treaty went far enough and syria, which is in the middle of a civil war, with the united states now saying, okay, we're with them, i think it is not a good signal to the rest of the world and i would also say politically, to my political colleagues -- >> this is vice president pence. he's out there talking at the rose garden. let's listen in. >> members of congress, distinguished guests, on behalf of the first family, welcome to the white house. you know, it's the greatest privilege of my life to serve as
vice president to a president who is fighting every day to make america great again. since the first day of this administration, president donald trump has been working tirelessly to keep the promises that he made to the american people. president trump has been reforming health care, enforcing our laws and ending illegal immigration, rebuilding our military and this president has been rolling back excessive regulations and unfair trade practices that were stifling american jobs. thanks to president trump's leadership, american businesses are growing again, investing in america again and they're creating jobs in this country instead of shipping jobs overseas. thanks to president donald trump, america is back. [ applause ] and just last week, we all witnessed the bold leadership of an american president on the world stage putting america
first. from the middle east to europe as leader of the free world, president trump reaffirmed historical alliances, forged new relationships and called on the wider world to confront the threat of terrorism in renewed ways. and by the action that the president will announce today, the american people and the wider world will see once again our president is choosing to put american jobs and american consumers first. our president is choosing to put american energy and american industry first and by this action today, president donald trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women of america first. so with gratitude for his leadership and admiration for his unwavering commitment to the american people, it's my high honor and distinct privilege to introduce to you the president of the united states of america, president donald trump. [ applause ]
>> thank you very much. thank you. i would like to begin by addressing the terrorist attack in manila. we're closely monitoring the situation and i will continue to give updates if anything happens during this period of time but it is really very sad as to what is going on throughout the world with terror. our thoughts and our prayers are with all of those affected. before we discuss the paris
accord, i'd like to begin with an update on our tremendous, absolutely tremendous economic progress since election day on november 8th. the economy has started to come back and very, very rapidly. we've added $3.3 trillion in stock market value to our economy and more than a million private sector jobs. i've just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the united states creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. it was a very, very successful trip, believe me. thank you. thank you. in my meetings at the g-7, we have taken historic steps to demand fair and reciprocal trade
that gives americans a level playing field against other nations. we're also working very hard for peace in the middle east and perhaps even peace between the israelis and the palestinians. our attacks on terrorism are greatly stepped up and you see that, you see it all over. from the previous administration including getting many other countries to make major contributions to the fight against terror. big, big contributions are being made by countries that weren't doing so much in the form of contribution. one by one, we are keeping the promises i made to the american people during my campaign for president. whether it's cutting job-killing regulations, appointing and confirming a tremendous supreme court justice, putting in place tough new ethics rules, achieving a record reduction in
illegal immigration on our southern border or bringing jobs, plants and factories back into the united states at numbers which no one, until this point, thought even possible. and believe me, we've just begun. the fruits of our labor will be seen very shortly, even more so. on these issues and so many more we're following through on our commitments and i don't want anything to get in our way. i am fighting every day for the great people of this country. therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect america and its citizens, the united states will withdraw from the paris climate accord --
[ applau [ applause ] thank you. thank you. but begin negotiations to re-enter either the paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the united states, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. so we're getting out but we'll start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair. and if we can, that's great. and if we can't, that's fine. as president, i can put no other consideration before the
well-being of the american citizens. the paris climate accord is an example of washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the united states. and the exclusive benefit of other countries. leaving american workers, who i love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shut factories and vastly diminished economic production. thus, as of today, the united states will cease all implementation of the nonbinding paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. this includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the green
climate fund, which is costing the united states a vast fortune. compliance with the terms of the paris accord and the owner's energy restrictions it's put on the united states could cost america as much as 2.3 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the national economic research associates. this includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs, not what we need. believe me, this is not what we need. including automobile jobs and the further countless communities rely on. they rely for so much and we would be giving them so little.
according to the same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut the following sectors. paper down 12%. cement down 23%. iron and steel down 38%. coal -- and i happen to love the coal miners -- down 86%. natural gas, down 31%. the cost of the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost gdp and 6.5 million industrial jobs while
households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that. not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals as someone who cares deeply about the environment, which i do. i cannot, in good conscience, support a deal that punishes the united states, which is what it does. the world's leader in environmental protection while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world's leading polluters. for example, under the agreement, china will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years.
13. they can do whatever they want for 13 years. not us. india makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries. there are many other examples, but the cot tomorrow line is that the paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the united states. further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the clean coal of america, which it does, and the minds are starting to open up, we have a big opening if two weeks. pennsylvania, ohio, west virginia, so many places. a big opening of a brand-new mine that's unheard of for many reasons that hasn't happened. they asked me if i'd go.
i'm going to try. china will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. so we can't build the plants but they can. according to this agreement. india will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. think of it. india can double their coal production. we're supposed to get rid of ours. even europe is allowed to continue a production of coal plants. in short, it doesn't eliminate coal jobs, just transfers those jobs out of america and the united states and ships them to foreign countries. this agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the united states. the rest of the world applauded when we signed the paris
agreement. they went wild. they were so happy. for the simple reason that it put our country, the united states of america, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage. a cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer the self-inflicted major economic wound. we would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world. we are among the most abundant energy reserves in the planet, sufficient to lift millions of america's poorest workers out of poverty. yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting this
reserves under lock and key taking away the great wealth of our nation, it's great wealth. it's phenomenal wealth. not so long ago we had no idea of such wealth. and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness. the agreement is a massive redistribution of united states' wealth to other countries. at 1% growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4% growth, which i expect, we need all forms of available america energy or our country will be a
grave risk of brownouts or blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt, in many cases, and the american family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life. even if the paris agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a .02 of 1 degree. think of that. this much. celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. a tiny, tiny amount. in fact, it would wipe out the gains from america and this is
an incredible statistic, would totally wipe out the gains from america's expected reductions in the year 2030. after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and our homes. as "the wall street journal" wrote this morning, "the reality is that withdrawing is in america's economic interest and won't matter much to the climate." the united states, under the trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on earth. we'll be the cleanest. we're going to have the cleanest
air, the cleanest water, we will be environmentally friendly but we're not going to put our businesses out of work and we're not going to lose our jobs. we're going to grow. we're going to grow rapidly. and i think you just read, it just came out minutes ago, the small business report, small businesses as of now are booming, hiring people, one of the best reports they've seen in many years. i'm willing to immediately work with democratic leaders to either negotiate our way back into paris under the terms that are fair to the united states and its workers or to negotiate a new deal that protects our country and its taxpayers. [ applause ]
so, if the obstructionists want to get together with me, let's make them nonobstructionists. they will all sit down and get back into the deal and make it good and we won't be closing up our factories and we won't be losing our jobs and we'll sit down with the democrats and all of the people that represent either the paris accord or something that we could do that's much better than the paris accord and i think the people of our country will be thrilled and i think the people of the world will be thrilled. but until we do that, we're out of the agreement. i will work to ensure that america remains the world's leader on environmental issues. but under a framework that is fair and with the burdens and responsibilities that are equally shared among the many nations all around the world.
no responsible leader can put the workers and the people of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage. the fact that the paris deal hamstrings the united states while empowering some of the world's top polluting countries should dispel any doubt as to the real reason why foreign lobbyists wish to keep our magnificent country tied up and bound down by this agreement. it's to give their country an economic edge over the united states. that's not going to happen while i'm president. i'm sorry. [ applause ] my job as president is to do
everything within my power to give america a level playing field and to create the economic regulatory and tax structures that make america the most prosperous and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection. our tax bill is moving along in congress, and i believe it's doing very well. i think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised. the republicans are working very, very hard. we love to have support from the democrats, but we may have to go it alone. but it's going very well. the paris agreement handy caps the united states economy in
order to win prays from the foreign capitals and global actives that have long sought to gain wealth at our country's expense. they don't put america first. i do. and i always will. the same nationing discuss to stay in the agreement are the countries that have collectively cost america trillions of dollars through tough trade practices and in many cases lax contributions to our critical miller alliance. you see what's happening. it's pretty obvious to those who want to keep an open mind. at what point does america get demeaned? at what point do they start laughing at us as a country?
we want fair treatment for its citizens, and we want fair treatment for our taxpayers. we don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more. and they won't be. they won't be. i was elected to represent the citizens of pittsburgh, not paris. i promised i would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve america's interests. many trade deals will soon be under renegotiation. very rarely do we have a deal that works for this country. but they'll soon be under renegotiation. the process has begun from day one. but now we're down to business.
beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the paris accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the united states through the so-called green climate fund -- nice name -- which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to dwelling countries, all on top of america's existing and massive foreign aid payments. so we're going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars. and we're already way ahead of anybody else. many of the other countries haven't spent anything. and many of them will never pay one dime. the green fund would likely obligate the united states to commit potentially tens of
billions of dollars, of which the united states has already handed over $1.0 billion. nobody elts is even close. most of them haven't paid anything. including funds raided out of america's budget for the war against terrorism. that's where they came. believe me. they didn't come from me. they came just before i came into office. not good. and not good the way they took the money. in 2015 the united nations departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 per year as peanuts, and stated that the $100 billion is the
tail that wags the dog. in 2015 the green climate funds executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed to increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. and nobody even knows where the money is going to. nobody has been able to say where is it going to. of course the world's top polluters have no affirmative obligations unthe green fund, which we terminate. america is $20 trillion in debt. cash strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix vital infrastructure. millions of our citizens are out of work. and yet unthe paris accord billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in
america will be sent to the very countries that have faen our fact ris and jobs away from us. so think of that. there are serious legal and constitutional issues as well. foreign leaders in europe, asia and across the world should not have more to say with respect to the u.s. economy than our own citizens and their elected represent he was. thus our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of america's sovereignty. [ applause ] >> our constitution is unique
among all nations of the world. and it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it. and i will. staying in the agreement could also pose serious objectles for the united states as we begin unlocking america's energy reserves, which ref started very strongry. it would have once been be unthinkable an international agreement could prevent the united states from conducting its own domestic economic affairs. but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal. the risks grow as historically
these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. in other words, the paris framework is just a starting point, as bad as it is, not an end point. and exiting the agreement protects the united states from future intrusions on the united states' sovereignty. and massive future legal liability. believe me. we have massive legal liability if we stay in. as president, i have one obligation. and that obligation is to the american people. the paris according would undermine our economy, ham string our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk, and put us as a permanent disadvantage to the
other countries of the world. it is time to exit the paris accord. [ applause ] >> and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country. it is time to put young town, ohio, detroit, michigan and pittsburgh, pennsylvania along with many other great locations in our country before paris, france. it is time to make america great again. thank you [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much.
thank you very much. very important. i'd like to ask scott pruitt who most of you know and respect as i do, just to say a few words, scott, please. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. president. your decision today to exit the paris accord reflects your unflinching commitment to put america first and by exiting you are fulfilling one more campaign promise to the american people. please know i mean thankable to are four attitude and steadfastness as you serve and lead our country. america finally has a leader answering only to the people, not to the special interests who had their way for way take a look. in everything you do you