>> some recognizable logos there. >> but the oil companies are all there. one is that oil companies, utilities, companies like that need predictability. what they don't want to know, if this was not a consensus agreement to pull out of paris, will the next president get us back in. we have to build plants for the next 40, 50 years. we can bake it square or round. the other issue is that coal is filthy. and natural gas is less filthy. and all the oil companies are in the natural gas business, not the coal business. so they saw climate as deemphasizing coal. sms that donald trump said he wouldn't do. they saw the deemphasizing of coal to be good for the natural gas business. so there are all sorts of unusual bedfellows around here. it is interesting to note that other than little bits in the united kingdom, the climate skepticism is a unique problem to america. most of the rest of the world

doesn't get into debates about whether the world is round or square. they don't get into whether there's climate warming or not. but the discussions are over for most people in the world. >> as you've been watching, our krasilnikov have been watching. there are a couple of white house aides, we keep saying jared kushner's voice has not been heard. steve is part of our coverage. this will have brought ripples starting this afternoon. we've had so much discussion during the trump presidency, only because trump became president is x happening. i think there's a tendency to put this one in that box.

i'm not so sure that almost any republican who had been elected last year wouldn't also be going down this road. think back to the roots of what is happening today. this was a treaty entered into by the obama administration bust the obama administration mailed a very important dwhigs they entered into the treaty. they bypassed the united states senate. they said we won't ask for ratification because they didn't believe the votes were there. you would need a super majority to pass one of these things. not just that republicans would likely have been against ratification. it is democrats like joe manchin, they were concern that had not even democrats would be on board with this. so i think this is one of those situations where you had pretty much wall to wall opposition among republicans, republican who's don't like the deal itself. they think this is a deal entered into by that previous administration. that they don't think the administration should be without the consent of the senate. it binds future administrations to these goals, these targets,

these commitments. so this is something that donald trump is doing. i'm just not sure that president rubio or cruz wouldn't have done the same thing. >> nicole wallace, i'm coming to you in a moment. i just want to alert people to reince priebus. i think that appears to be the television operator beneath the colonnade ceiling and they are going through one last night the president's remarks. but -- >> you want to make sure you give him the right draft. >> nicole, to steve's last point. president rubio, president ka h kasich, do you believe they would be doing the same thing is that. >> i'm not sure. mitt romney tweeted yesterday his support for the paris accord. what might have been a path, and i think that governor kasich is pretty forward leaning. maybe out of step with some elements of the republican party. he is not a denier.

especially on the american right. but i think that there were other things to do. and we don't know everything he will say but there was a route to be taken by a clever republican or democrat. they could have sent to it congress. donald trump could have said, i don't want to do this alone. i want to do with it congress. he could have said, i didn't decide. i sent this to the house and the senate to see if it had support among their constituencies. i think he could have done a conservative version of this. these were targets. one of the weaknesses of the agreement in the eyes of some of its detractors were that they were just targets, not binding. so there were a lot of different paths. i think people that project all of their homes on to ivanka donald trump had talked about these scenarios. that ivanka was trying to present curtain number three, that it wasn't a binary choice

between staying in an obama-like deal that any republican might have not been attracted to, or staying or going, that there might have been a third way. and i understand that case was made to him and the reporting we're flaring kristin and others is that didn't appeal to him in the end. >> we said in our broadcast, this is a president who needs a win. he needs to have an impact on something. is there a middle ground? even the leaks to congress from the white house, white house officials were saying, i can't say for sure what he will say in an hour and a half. is there a middle ground where he looks like he is to be grossly political about it, satisfying the base, turning this thing down. and saying, if they make the changes we have prescribed, i'll go along. >> well, sort of. if the u.s. isn't a leader in that discussion, then there isn't. the whole benefit of being part of this decision, is there are a lot of people.

by the nature of a deal that involves this many countries, everybody had to give something up. one of the unusual parts is that developed countries like the united states which is per cka capi capita, the emirates is a bigger polluter, they have to reduce levels below what they were in 2005. developing countries like china and india, which are empirically massive polluters, get to increase their carbon emissions over time. so it felt unfair. the slush fund the u.s. would establish for remediation was 30% funded by the united states. so there's a feeling of unfairness. the first thing americans have to come to terms with, some deals will be unfair including the funding of nato and things like that. but there could have been ways of doing it but it wouldn't have been for donald trump. he said he was ripping up the iran deal too.

>> and some of the talk is it could have been like nafta which he said he would pull out of. he sent nafta to congress for review. some people suggested to him, as with nafta, could you propose fixes, to make it better for the class base. that's the part of the coalition that includes the most democrats. that they need to watch. wasn't zero with that part of it. >> except for the climate skeptics and the climate deniers. >> they don't send to be the working class voters. >> one, a utility you'll hear from the president is this doesn't measurably help the climate. that's just science that we haven't seen the back-up for. er the goal here, and it is very hard to get your head around, if we do everything right for the next 50 years, we will prevent the earth from moving 2 degrees higher than it was. >> in the marshal islands.

>> it is hard to say, you'll eliminate my entire industry for 2 degrees? >> when you poll the question of the paris accord, it is very popular. when you poll the idea of broadly speaking, addressing climate change, something we should be dealing with, absolutely you find broad support. when you add a layer to the polls, priorities and choices, well, do you want to do it if it means would it cost x number of jobs, it would cost x amount of dollars. there was an exit poll last year. the same exit poll that showed people broadly speaking thinking this is a major threat, asked them to rank in it materials of priorities with jobs, with health care, dead last. >> kristin who is in the rose garden, i'll going to rear back and throw a cutter and see if you want to take a swing at this. if you're the governor of california and you have your views, you have what, 40 million people. you have a state that could be a

nation. and you strongly disagree with what is about to happen, we believe in the rose garden, another way of asking, what can the individual 50 states do? >> i think that's the right question. so let me take a swing at it. governor jerry brown speaking out and saying, this move to pull out of paris climate agreement will only energize people who want to combat climate change. he underscores a very critical point. there are already states, governor who's are taking climate action into their own hands. already, trying to order large company the reduce their carbon emissions. there are large companies going to on their own volition. we heard from the mayor of boston yesterday. on a more local level who said, we won't stand for this, we won't stand for another super storm sandy, for example. so we'll continue on come bat

climate change in our own way unilaterally. and i think that underscores what oner person said to me. that pulling out wounds the deal but it doesn't destroy it. you have close to 200 countries who are in the deal. the united states will join syria and nicaragua as the only countries not in the deal. once we hear from the president. and one other point i made, the president likes the word negotiate. so i wouldn't be surprised if you mattered today. when i messed this source on what specifically that meant, this person left the door open for the president to effectively say, that he's pulling out today but he wants to find a better deal. to keep the negotiation going with other countries. so i think that is one of the aspects of this that we'll be listening for. but there is no doubt that states, cities and corporations are dealing with climate change in their own right regardless of what the president announces moments from now.

>> thank you. that raises a point importantly, the word deal. part of the title of the president's book is something he uses constantly. it is how he refers to middle east peace. as a deal. and one other asterisk, kristin mentioned, we now make the list of nations against paris, three. one of them, nicaragua is on there because it didn't go far enough for nick ragra and their taste. >> a failed state. >> i was going to leave the global politics to you. to steve's point, the polling, if you walk out on the streets of new york or joplin, new jersey, is around 70. 71% of people who in theory are for what we're apparently going to pull out today. what about the risk politically? >> i've worked a dozen campaigns and i've looked at a lot of polls. when you ask someone to do something hard, it goes badly.

but i think coil like pg & e, a national energy coil, they're on the side of staying in. they believe you can get on the side of innovating out of these problems. if you put industry on the side of innovation, who is to stay will wouldn't be more jobs? so i think it is an old and expired false choice. of course if you say it will cost you jobs. no one is for that other. than your security, it is the most economic security, every poll shows economic security is the most personal and dear thing to them. if you show them a price to their economic security no, one is for it. it is a false choice. >> you get a chance to offset your carbon foot print with money. so we have created a world in which offsetting your carbon foot the print is sensitive. when you think about it differently, about carbon output.

you can get into a market. one can make money that way. there is a very republican mayor of georgetown texas. a mayor who has made a long term deal for georgetown, texas, to be environmentally friendly over time. a republican. but he said this is smarter for my residents, for our tax base. there are ways america could be the absolute leader. that's why, nicole is right. this is a false choice. >> and steve, the democrats have argued, there is an economy out there in building the stuff of green energy. from solar panels to the big wind turbines. a few more of them just took up residence in the atlantic ocean as the residents in rhode island have decided to supply their own electricity. >> there was a feature of the obama administration. one thing you have to acknowledge in terms of the

politics, the discussion we're having now, about jobs versus environmentalism. you think of the 56-year-old coal worker, coal miner in west virginia who heard hillary clinton last year basically say, these coal jobs are going away. they're not coming back. is that person going to transition over the next five or ten years into a green energy job? or is that person looking at the end of his career, five years before he was ready. is he looking at his son saying, he'll go into the mines and have an income like i had. that uncertainty is out there. i think that was one of the failures of hillary clinton's campaign. wasn't just west virginia. it was in a lot of blue collar places. that's one of the sub contekts that donald trump is doing. one of the reasons he's pulling out. he has issued a number of executive orders. one dwelt coal emissions. one was a message sent to the vote per i'm describing. by issuing it, you can't really

sustain this deal based on the executive orders he's put in place already. >> to steve's example, that would take leadership as well. to say to a general electric, okay, put a plant right near west virginia where you have motivated, skilled, hungry workers. where it will have a measurable effect on the local economy. detroit also comes to mind. josh earnest is watching, a man who had the task of being the spokesman for president obama. i've been noticing things about today. let's stay president's tweet the other night was the most nontradition tal presidential thing about this week. the things i've noticed that are traditional, the setting, using home-field advantage to get a lot of media attention and make an announcement, the fact they did brief some folks on the hill prior to this even though they

had some incomplete information for them. and even though it leaked immediately. and also, networks like the one have been approached to talk on some cabinet secretaries. after this event. a very traditional thing to do. send your folks out to help sell it. i imagine you think this will be a hard sell. >> i think it will be a hard sell. and i do, what nicole is saying earlier really resonated with me. i do think that the american people are deeply concerned about the prospect of the united states being on the side of syria and nick raragua on this deal. not just because americans don't like being isolated from the international community, they expect america to be leading the international community. if you consider the context of the argument taking place in washington, d.c. about climate change over the last 20 or 30 years, for a long time, skeptics of climate change suggested that would it put the united states at a disstroong take steps to

address climate change if we didn't get rest of the world to go along with it. that's when people who cared about climate change rolled up their sleeves and got to boring, including in the obama administration, to do hard diplomatic work of bringing the world together. to bring 195 different nations on make a tangible specific commitment to addressing climate change. that's a 56th he. it is hard to get the world, with so many different countries, with so many different interests. what it does do for the united states economically is it creates a global market. the united states are in the leading edge of installing solar panels, manufacturing solar panels, building wind turbines, all kinds of technology around efficiency. no longer are those companies now just in business in the united states but because of the business around the world, now these u.s. businesses can do business all around the world. and that is why when the

president was in paris, in december of 2015, to cement this deal there was so much optimism around the world. not and just the world had come together to address this press go problem but because of the significant economic benefits at stake. not just in the united states but around the world. >> listening and taking josh's comments alongside yours, there is something else afoot. the could nncensus among elites. i think this is also going to be an inflection point where we can draw a line and show people where he landed. he landed on the side of the forgotten man and woman who got him there. and the advocates are steve bannon, my latest reporting shows that reince priebus aligns himself with steve bannon.

kellyanne conway has always had her finger on the pulse of the voters who got him there. and then josh and myself. sort of permanent. the kind of people who go in and out of every republican administration. people, well, donald trump as many as most republican dozen. but establishment figures who value things that we were talking about. not just being part of a global community but leading it. so it is not just a conversation or a day about the environment. i don't think there's anyone who thinks this was a good day for the environment. but it is important that even in the moment of incredible crisis for this white house, donald trump was reminded of exactly who brought him to the dance and he decided to stand with them for better or worse. >> that's certainly part of how they'll be dealing with. this it was supposed to have started 19 minutes ago. we believe that pretty much at the center of that picture, the

oval office which is just there to the left. you sue at the remote camera set up to get that shot as the president turns the corner and the shot of everyone looking at the audience. we believe the principles are in there, that would be the vice president, the epa administrator and the president. behind where the camera position is, we showed it to you earlier. reince priebus was over there with the man we believe to be the teleprompter operator. there are three big screens set up. the back of the rose garden. they are in effect flat screen tvs on their side and serve as rolling text surfaces for the president. kristin welker, what appears to be going on? >> reporter: well, people are starting to gather, as you point out. top administration officials here. we anticipate the president will

be joined by a number of people within the climate industry who support this move. ceos perhaps. worth noting, all of this comes against back drop of what could be signs of a shake-up here. the president's communications director has announced his resignation. he is here targs it is worth noting will he will leave once the president finds his replacement. and according to our conversations with sources here, they're eyeing other potential staff changes. they're starting to build up a war room. what is being known as a war room to deal with the russia probe. and for this president who has been embattled by the russia probe, a chance to sthift headlines, at least momentarily. to focus his agenda items. striking that yesterday in the press briefing room, sean spicer wouldn't answer questions about russia for the first time.

he deferred all questions to the president's outside counsel. we're going to try to shout some questions at the president today. we'll see if we get him to answer anything. a lot of big questions at the forefront as the president prepares to make this big announcement. >> we won't tell him in advance we've been looking at that shot of the white house aides in the front row. steve bannon just took his place between cohn and priebus. ali velshi, how would you, if you were communications director at the white house. a lot of these are bad deals. you mention that had donald trump thinks of all these things as deals. he liked the idea for these to be unilateral deals, not multinational deals. that's one of the things they seal to have a problem with.

they feel when the united states is one of a parties to a deal, it gets the bad end of the stick. the problem that this white house will have, there are five cabinet secretaries. you have rick perry who thinks it is a hoax. ben carson who thought so. the secretary of the interior, ryan zinke. scott pruitt, with the environmental protection agency, and jeff sessions, attorney general. this is part of problem. the interesting part of this conversation is whether or not this is onerous on u.s. business. that's where i would take this. they're still having a conversation about whether the climate is warming. they're still having a conversation about whether humans have an impact on it. that's the financial problem, the economic problem we've got. the rest of the world has moved to a different conversation.

>> well, you started by asking what the communications director would do. i think part of the reason they have a hard time filling that position is because a lot of these decisions are impossible to sell. there isn't a good side to doing something that on its face looks like -- >> if you want to put that it way. >> i'm not a candidate. i think you lost me at disqualified. it's obviously i was wrong. on the broader question of what a communications director would do, part of the reason mike dubke has resigned and they've reached out to four people who have refused to be considered, you have a president who became a leader of the free world, the most powerful person in the world without someone with the titles of communications director. how do you think he convinces them that he needs one? really, really hard to do. i think he believes with his twitter account and his sort of mainline to his base, he doesn't need to do a lot of selling. i'm surprised they're putting out cabinet members to spin

this, as you accurately said. and i think they're doing it to speak to the business leaders are part of his own economic sub groups and committees who very publicly lobbied against pulling out of climate agreement. >> there is our teleprompter. i'm told, this is an effort to replace some cables leading to the teleprompter. so the three speakers can see their prepared remarks. again, as far as we know, they are all still in the oval office. there are a lot of mostly men with sunglasses scurrying in this effort to replace the cables. steve kornacki, i keep coming back to this number i believe to be 71% and how this will break down around dinner tables and work places in america tonight and into tomorrow. >> i think it is a 71%, it is

soft in some ways. depending on how the argument against is it framed, the number could move. one of the bigger back drops to this, i think nicole was just getting into this, talking about the issue of globalism and all these corporations and businesses weighing in, saying stay in this. it used to be that a republican president would listen to the business community. you have this array of corporate establishment saying we're citizens of the global stage. a republican president would listen and there are some republican who's do still listen. but donald trump revealed with his campaign, with the success we had the base of the party, has been totally transformed in the last generation. it is now white, older, it is blue collar, it is in a lot of cases, noncollege educated. in what is replaced ideology. it used to be anti-tax, pro free market. that was the ideology a generation ago. for the base that now exists in the republican party, it is less about ideology and more about

national identity. and i was thinking about something nicole saying earlier. maybe the audience isn't there with the u.s. separating itself from the global stage. i think that was the case but not post 2008. one of my barometers was pat buchanan. he ran against all of these global deals. he ran against nafta. all these trade deals. well, pat buchanan couldn't get more than 25%. he couldn't win a general election. guess what, donald trump took pat buchanan men with pat buchanan's blessing. he got himself elected president. i think a lot of people who do not like the idea of stepping back from the world stage at all but a lot more people than ever who do. >> nicole? >> i don't disagree but it is not a majority. bits 38%. and we know that donald trump is obsessed with three things. kab tv, twitter and polls. and he lives and dies by themmest doesn't want to be a

40% president. so that may have been enough to get him elected but i think the case the other side made to him, the reason you can't get anything done, that's a fact, he hasn't been able to advance a single legislative priority and they will probably go into the legislative recess passing nothing with the republican in the white house, controlling the white house and the house. it may be enough to get you the nomination and enough to win the electoral college but it is not enough to be the kind of guy that he wants to be, a guy who gets great press, great polls and can get things done. >> that gets to an even bigger picture be discussion. >> good thing the cables are broken. you have to change the dna of donald trump he was a 38% guy in the republican primaries, in the general election. there was to honeymoon no, bow to the democrats in november and december. hey, let's lay down arms. he has been in the same

confrontational posture from the very beginning to. your point, i see both of them. what i think you'll hear from the president is some version of we can't be dictated through by the international community. whether it is what you're saying, the base doesn't want to be part of the u.n. or global deals, or the america first idea, he will play to the idea that whatever we do on climate change. i don't think he'll say that it exists. i don't think he will say it is bad to cut emissions. i think he has to say it is our choice. one way or the other -- >> i see a door opening at the oval office and i see the vice president. >> if good afternoon. secretary mnuchinin, secretary ross, epa administrator scott pruitt, members of congress, distinguished guests on. behalf of the first family, welcome to the white house. you know, it is 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, 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. 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 historic lingss, forged new relationships and called on the wider world to confront the threat of terrorism in new and renewed ways. by action 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 his action today, president donald trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women first. so with gratitude for his leadership -- and admiration for his unwavering commitment to the american people, it is now my high honor and distinct privilege to introduce to all of 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 very sad as to what's 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 would like the begin with an update on our tremendous, absolutely tremendous check progress since election day on november 8th. the economy is starting 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. 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 is 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 -- [ applause ] thank you. thank you. but begin negotiations to reenter either the paris accord or really entirely new transition on terms that are fair to the united states, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers, so we're getting out but we will start to negotiate and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair. if we can, that's great. if we can't, that's fine. as president, i can put no other consideration before the well-being of american citizens.

the paris climate accord is simply the latest example of washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the united states to the exclusive benefit of other countries. leaving american workers who i love and taxpayers to absorb, in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered 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 owners, could cost americans as much as 2.7 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 decimation of vital american industries on which countless communities rely. 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 production for 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 to the economy at this time would be close the $3 trillion in lowered 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 bottom 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 development of clean coal in america, which it does, and the mines are starting to open up. they're having a big noepg two weeks, pennsylvania, ohio, west virginia, so many places. a big opening of a brand new mine. unheard of. for many, many years, that

hasn't happened. they asked me if i would go. i'll 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 construction of coal plants. in short, the agreement doesn't eliminate coal jobs. it 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 this self-inflicted major economic wound. we would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world. we have among the most bundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of america's poorest workers out of poverty. yet under this agreement, we are

effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation. great wealth. phenomenal wealth. not so long ago, we had no idea we had 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 american energy, for our country. [ applause ]

our country will be at gravesite risk of brownouts and 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 in the paris agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated, it would only produce a .2 of 1 degree, think of that. this much. celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. a tiny, tiny amount. in fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from china alone would wyoming out the gain -- wipe out

the gains from america, 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 for 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 clean the he was. we'll have the clean the he was

air, the cleanest water, we will be environmentally friendly, but we won't put our businesses out of work. we won't lose our jobs. we're going to grow. we're going on grow rapidly. and i think you just read, it just came out minutes ago, the small business report, small businesses as of just now are booming. hiring people, one of the best reports i've seen in many years. i'm willing to immediately work 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.

so if the obstructionists want to get with me, let's make they will nonobstructionists. we will all sit down and get back into the deal and make it good and we won't be closing up our factories or losing our jobs, we'll sit down with the democrats and all the people that represent either the paris accord or something much better than the paris accord and i think the people will be thrilled and i think the people of the world will be thrilled. until we do that, we're out of agreement. i will work to make sure the world remains the world's leader on environmental issues. but under a framework that is fair and with the burdens and responsibilities 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 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 lobby of thes wish to keep our magnificent country can tied up and bound down by this agreement. it is to give their country an economic edge over the united states. that's not going to happen while i'm president. i'm sorry. 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 and stucktu stucktu structures that make most the most prosperous and protective country on earth, 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'd love to have support from the democrats, but we may have to go it alone, but it's going very well. the paris agreement handicaps the united states' economy in order to win praise from the

very foreign capitals and global activists 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 nations asking us 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 military alliance. you see what's happening. it's pretty obvious to those that 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 anymore, 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 developing countries all on top of america's existing and massive foreign aid payments. so we're going it 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 billion. nobody else is even close. most of them haven't even 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 billion per year as peanuts and stated that the $100 billion is the tail that wags the dog.

in 2015, the green climate fund's executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020, and nobody even knows where the money's going to. nobody's been able to say, where is it going to? of course, the world's top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the green fund, which we terminated. 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 under the paris accord, billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here

in america will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and our 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 representatives, thus, our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of america's sovereignty. 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 obstacles for the united states as we begin the process of unlocking the restrictions on america's abundant energy reserves. which we have started. very strongly. it would once have been unthinkable that 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 amond more ambitiou 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 accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk, and put us at a permanent

disadvantage to the other countries of the world. it is time to exit the paris accord. and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country. it is time to put youngstown, ohio, detroit, michigan, and pittsburgh, pennsylvania, along with many, many other locations within our great country, before paris, france. it is time to make america great again. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much.

>> there might be another chapter here. let's hold off. >> thank you very much. very important. i'd like to ask scott pruitt, who most of you know and are respect, as i do, just to say a few words. scott, please? >> thank you, mr. president. your decision today to exit the paris accord reflects your unflinching commitment to put america first. and by exiting, you're fulfilling yet one more campaign promise to the american people. please know that i'm thankful for your fortitude, your courage, and your steadfastness as you serve and lead our country. america finally has a leader who answers only to the people, not to the special interests who had their way for way too long, and everything you do, mr. president,