Return to Transcripts main page
THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER
President Trump Withdraws From Global Climate Deal. Aired 4- 4:30p ET
Aired June 1, 2017 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SCOTT PRUITT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR: 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 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 have had their way for way too long. In everything you do, Mr. President, you're fighting for the forgotten men and women across this country.
You are a champion for the hardworking citizens all across this land who just want a government that listens to them and represents their interests.
You have promised to put America first in all that you do. And you have done that in any number of ways, from trade to national security, to protecting our border, to right-sizing Washington, D.C.
And, today, you put America first with regard to international agreements and the environment. This is an historic restoration of American economic independence, one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes.
With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again. And it should be noted that we as a nation do it better than anyone in the world in striking the balance between growing our economy, growing jobs, while also being a good steward of our environment.
We owe no apologies to other nations for our environmental stewardship. After all, before the Paris accord was ever signed, America had reduced its CO2 footprint to levels from the early 1990s. In fact, between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by 18-plus percent.
And this was accomplished not through government mandate, but accomplished through innovation and technology of America private sector.
For that reason, Mr. President, you have corrected a view that was paramount in Paris, that somehow the United States should penalize its own economy, be apologetic, lead with our chin, while the rest of the world does little. Other nations talk a good game. We lead with action, not words.
PRUITT: Our efforts, Mr. President, as you know, should be on exporting our technology, our innovation to nations who seek to reduce their CO2 footprint to learn from us.
That should be our focus vs. agreeing to unachievable targets that harm our economy and the American people.
Mr. President, it takes courage, it takes commitment to say no to the plaudits of men while doing what's right by the American people. You have that courage. And the American people can take comfort because you have their backs.
Thank you, Mr. President.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you. Thank you.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump in the Rose Garden of the White House after just announcing a decision that was many months in coming, that the United States would withdraw from the Paris agreement; 194 countries have signed on to the agreement. The United States now joins Nicaragua and Syria in not being part of the environmental agreement to try to reduce the carbon footprint and also to help countries that are dealing with the effects of climate change.
Before President Trump had finished his statement, President Obama, former President Obama released a statement of his own on the decision to withdraw from the Paris deal.
It reads in part -- quote -- "The nations that remain in the Paris agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership, even as this administration joins a small handful nations that reject the future, I'm confident that our states, cities and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way and help protect for future generations the one planet we have got."
Let's talk about the speech with our panel.
And, Dana, I know a line that the president said that struck a lot of us was when he cast the Paris agreement as -- quote -- "a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries."
DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right, because the whole theme against President Obama during both of the elections against him was that he was a Democrat who wants to redistribute wealth.
That is a buzzword, a signal to conservatives that we got your back and we're going to make sure that sort of the bid bad Democrats who want to socialize and globalize and do everything that would hurt you and your jobs won't happen.
And there were a series of those buzzwords. It was almost like Mad Lips for conservatives, the speech. And it was a long one.
The thing -- one of the things that struck me is, after all of the reporting we have done about the discussions, and the debates, and the pressure that he got from his daughter, from his -- Ivanka, from his son-in-law Jared, from his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. There wasn't an olive branch in here.
It's like those people were walled off in the writing of this speech and it was clearly written by the Steve Bannon and Steven Millers of the world. And there wasn't really anything that I heard that was even remotely -- aside from the idea that he might try to redo this deal and renegotiate this deal if he can.
TAPPER: Yes, but there wasn't -- it wasn't very serious.
TAPPER: If we renegotiate, fine. If we don't, great.
TAPPER: Let's go to CNN senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta, who is at the White House.
And, Jim, this was full nationalist, America first, damn the rest of the world President Trump, I'm putting the interests of the forgotten man and woman first, according to how I see them.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Jake.
It seemed to come right out of the Steve Bannon playbook. And it's a little early obviously for a Rose Garden campaign for 2020 to begin. But when you hear the president use words like I represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris, you have an announcement that is steeped in campaign rhetoric.
Obviously, the president is representing the citizens of Pittsburgh, but his critics would argue he is also supposed to be the leader of the free world. And that's why you're seeing statements from President Obama and others condemning this decision, because they are saying that he is really abdicating that role as leader of the free world.
But, Jake, you heard time and again throughout these remarks from the president that he is really trying to frame this as an economic decision.
Here is a bit of what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ACOSTA: Now, we were just mentioning Steve Bannon, the president's chief strategist, a few moments ago. Who was prominently standing outside after the president's remarks?
Steve Bannon, Jake, apparently taking a victory lab after the president's remarks here in the Rose Garden.
One absence we should take note of. We have not -- and perhaps I'm wrong about this. We scoured the Rose Garden for any sign or sight of the president's daughter Ivanka. We did not see her out here. Obviously, she was pushing the president to come out and say that he was going to stay in the Paris climate accord. But we don't see either Ivanka Trump or her husband, Jared Kushner, here in the Rose Garden -- Jake.
TAPPER: All right, Jim Acosta, thanks so much.
I believe Ivanka and Jared, they are observant Jews, Orthodox Jews. And it's a Jewish holiday of Shavuot.
I just want to read a tweet from the mayor of Pittsburgh, who wrote: "As the mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris agreement for our people, our economy and future."
And even though President Trump is factually correct that he represents the citizens of Pittsburgh, not of Paris, Pittsburgh is a city that voted 55 percent for Hillary Clinton in the presidential race.
CHRIS CILLIZZA, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: Obviously, it is easy to focused on the climate and this -- the very stats that earlier I thought I was actually edified by the debate between Van and Steve, which I don't always say.
But I think if you take-- not you guys, just generally.
If you go big picture here, this is Donald Trump's fundamental -- whether it's Steve Bannon -- or this is their fundamentally different vision that is at odds with the vision that George W. Bush had, the vision that Bill Clinton had, certainly the vision that Barack Obama had for what the U.S.' role in the world can and should be.
This is what he ran on.
TAPPER: This is Trumpism.
CILLIZZA: To the extent Trumpism exists, this is it, which is we are going to do things that are in our best interests economically.
CILLIZZA: The Paris vs. Pittsburgh line obviously is a little -- you could have picked up another one with two same first -- that you actually won, because, as you point out, he lost.
But that's the point. That's Trumpism. I'm here. Forever, he is globalist. We have elected these people who have tried to make us popular in European salons. I was to be popular in the beer hall. That's the theory of the case. And that's what he ran on.
And that's what he believes this represents. Sorry.
NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and that there's not a global community, right, that, really, there is a global competition and America should be dominant, right?
American workers should be dominant. America should be a sovereign -- he talked about sovereignty. He talked about not wanting to weaken sovereignty and being a part of this agreement would do that.
So, I think too often we talk about, oh, Ivanka Trump or Ivanka vs. Bannon. But this was all Donald Trump, right? This was vintage Donald Trump.
And in some ways, I think sort of the kind of debate and all of that, it was part of this little Kabuki theater, right? It was almost this long, months-long tease about, at some point, I'm going to make an agreement on Paris, and all these people are in my ear.
TAPPER: But the reality is, he did it.
HENDERSON: But the reality is that he made up his mind long ago.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: A couple things here.
This isn't just a departure from Barack Obama. This is a departure from Republican and Democratic administrations, and the last four, who have been working towards Paris and environmental -- on environmental issues.
And the second point is, there won't a lot of discussion on the environment here. This is jobs. This was jobs. And it was -- I mean, the line that struck me was when the president said, at what point, you know, does America -- do people start laughing at us? At what point does America get demeaned? I can't read my handwriting.
At what point does America get demeaned? At what point do they start laughing at us?
CILLIZZA: This is Trumpism. It's exactly...
CILLIZZA: ... we're stupid.
BORGER: Can I finish?
TAPPER: Beyond the politics of it, though, Van, let's talk about the policy and what this decision actually means, because there was an article on the Weather Channel that I read earlier that says the United States withdrawing will actually mean a more rapid acceleration of the effects of climate change.
VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, inevitably, because we are a huge contributor.
But I just want to just back up a couple of things. First of all, he wants the United States to be able to outcompete the world on the wrong basis. We want to be able to compete by being able to out- pollute everybody.
We want to be the best polluters, the most pollution, as opposed to the best solutions. So, he is already got -- he is already wrong in terms how he wants us to show up.
And then he just doesn't even look at his own country. Look at California. California already has a more carbon-constrained set of policies than anything in Paris. And California is now the sixth largest economy in the world, and it's growing better than anything in the United States.
So, look at your own country. Where is their economic performance? It's when you actually have strong environmental performance that you're seeing strong economic performance.
Facts don't matter. Your country doesn't matter. Where your industries are doesn't matter. Where growth is happening doesn't matter, because you want to play this game of, I'm going to throw something to the base.
What the base needs is not sound bites. The base cannot eat your sound bites. The base needs jobs. The base needs jobs. And the jobs are going to come from these growing sectors the president just threw under the bus.
STEPHEN MOORE, CNN SENIOR ECONOMICS ANALYST: Well, look, I agree entirely. This is Trump. This is Trumpism.
And I would say it's Trump at his best. And I did travel a lot with him during the campaign. And I went to a lot of those Midwestern industrial states. And I got to tell you, when he talked about pulling out of the Paris accord, it was met with thunderous ovation from Trump voters.
They do believe -- and I happen to agree with them -- that this is something that does put America lass, that it puts American jobs in coal mining and transportation and the steel industry in jeopardy. And I would say this.
Yes, California does have the most stringent environmental laws right now. And factories -- nobody is building any new factories in California.
JONES: Tesla? I'm so sorry.
HENDERSON: Companies are building products to compete in California and to sell their products in California. So, car companies are following California's lead, because they want to sell their products there.
TAPPER: Speaking of corporations, we have been talking about how many U.S. corporations are behind the Paris accord, not manufacturing sector corporations, but others.
The CEO of both Tesla and SpaceX, Elon Musk, had threatened to quit as a presidential adviser if President Trump took the action that he -- it seemed he was going to take. And moments ago, Elon Musk made good on that with a -- quote -- "Am departing presidential counsels. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world."
Also, I want to read this from Jeff Immelt. He is the CEO of General Electric. And he said -- quote -- "Disappointed today's decision on the Paris agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government."
MOORE: Elon Musk has a huge financial self-interest in solar power, right? He runs...
TAPPER: What about Jeff Immelt?
MOORE: He has -- he gets -- Elon Musk gets $5 billion a year in federal subsidies.
JONES: What about Chevron?
TAPPER: What about Jeff Immelt?
JONES: What about BP? What about Exxon?
What about every other industry? And here is the thing. I think we have a big problem, guys. We are now starting to get in a situation where even the top titans of American industry who are speaking up for American workers, their own, American industry, their own, American innovation, their own, cannot get a fair hearing from this White House.
[16:15:08] Now listen --
NIA MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: A Republican White House.
JONES: You don't want to listen to Van Jones, I get that. But you're telling the top industry leaders in the United States and our planet Earth that they're wrong?
DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Because, Van, the whole notion of Trumpism is they are part -- they're the man. They're the institution that is these people voted against -- the bosses, the CEOs, the Washington institutions, elites.
And so, you -- you're right and you said this that Democrats have done a poor job of messaging what you were just saying. And it is -- you know, and I was at some of the Trump rallies. I didn't get to ride on the plane.
But I was at some of those Trump rallies as well where you saw people eating up, soaking in the arguments that, I'm going to help you. Whether or not it is fair or accurate that you know that it is the global treaties and global agreements that hurt coal jobs or it's natural gas because that is the competition that they have -- it doesn't matter. They were hearing things they wanted to hear.
So, the challenge is for, you know, for your party and for Republicans who disagree with the president on this is to create an argument that will penetrate. And that any will actually listen to.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: And, you know, it's this whole conspiratorial theory we heard the president talk about. The same countries that are in this are the same countries that don't --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a good line. That's a great line.
BORGER: -- don't pay enough to NATO. And he was kind of -- which would be Europe, I guess, that he was linking all of these things together which is Dana calls the man --
STEPHEN MOORE, CNN ECONOMICS ANALYST: Why should believe that these other countries are going to comply with this agreement --
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Guys, I have to interrupt --
BORGER: -- the world is against us?
MOORE: I believe they don't honor the agreement.
TAPPER: I have to interrupt for one second, I'm sorry, because we have with us the EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, who we heard talking -- talking after President Trump spoke in the Rose Garden.
Administrator Pruitt, thanks so much for joining us today. We appreciate it.
SCOTT PRUITT, EPA ADMINISTRATOR: Jake, good afternoon.
TAPPER: So, you said today that President Trump was representing the interests of the American people with this decision. Is it in America's interest to do more to fight climate change or is it not?
PRUITT: Well, we have actually, since we're pre-1994 levels with our CO2 footprint right now. In fact, by the time the Paris accord was signed, we have reduced our carbon emissions in this country by 18 percent. And that was done.
TAPPER: Right, but to do more. To do more.
PRUITT: Look, we are leading the world with respect to innovation and technology at reducing our CO2 footprint. And this agreement was truly about putting America second or last. It was not about learning from what America is doing. It was about putting constraints on the economy as the president talked about.
This is not -- this is not an agreement or a decision with respect to engagement on CO2. America is going to continue engage on CO2. We're going to export innovation technology. We're going to continue our seat at the table and negotiating with the nations across the globe.
PRUITT: But it's going to be with the attitude of putting our interests first --
TAPPER: But, sir --
PRUITT: -- and making sure that we don't penalize ourselves.
TAPPER: China is the world's leading emitter of carbon pollutants. The United States is in second place. I mean, it's not as though the U.S., when you talk about how the U.S. is the leading the world, the U.S. is also second when it comes to creating these pollutants.
PRUITT: And under this agreement, Jake, as you know, China took know steps to reduce emissions until 2030. I mean, the rest of the nation applauded what we did in Paris because it puts at economic disadvantage while the rest of the world continued the status quo. And it caused us to have to focus on a reduction of 26 to 28 percent -- you know what's not known, Jake, is that the 26 to 28 percent reduction that we agreed to in Paris --
PRUITT: -- every action that was taken by the Obama administration we still fell 40 percent short of those targets. And so, we -- it was a failing agreement to begin with, but yet it constrained our economy while the rest of the world skated.
TAPPER: So, what should the U.S. do?
PRUITT: That's a bad deal for this country.
TAPPER: So, tell me -- President Trump talked about the possibility of maybe renegotiating, of trying to get a better deal. If you could create that deal right now to do something about climate change, what would that deal look like? And, obviously, China would have to do more. What would the U.S. be willing to do?
PRUITT: It should -- it should be with a focus and attitude toward technology and innovation, to ensure energy is used to generate electricity in this world, that we do so in an efficient and emission levels. And we have clean coal technology. We have hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to the conversion of natural gas that's contributed largely to this reduction in CO2 emissions. We need to export that to the rest of the world so they can follow our lead.
TAPPER: President Trump said that the Paris accord would hamstring U.S. economies. Twenty-five major U.S. corporations, including oil companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil, the former employer of your secretary of state, they all penned a letter arguing that the withdrawal would hurt the potential job growth in energy and tech sectors.
And as you know, Rex Tillerson was one of those internally who was arguing to stay in the Paris accord.
[16:20:06] There is also Tim Cook, the head of Apple.
Do you think all of these companies, Exxon, Apple, Rex Tillerson, they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to creating jobs in this country. PRUITT: Look, I think it's very speculative those jobs would be
adversely impacted, but what we do know objectively is that lost manufacturing jobs and lost energy jobs in this country, they were happening under the climate action agenda of the past administration. That's a fact.
And so, this president has made a commitment to the American people that he's going to put the interests of this country first. And that includes on the environment as well as our economy.
You know, Jake, I don't know why we bought this the last several years that you can't be pro-growth, pro-jobs and pro-environment. We've done that as a nation through our entire history. In fact, since 1980, since 1980, we've obviously experienced tremendous GDP growth. During that same time frame, we reduced air pollutants on our Clean Air Act by 65 percent.
PRUITT: I mean, we truly do lead the world at finding the balance between jobs and economy. It was the past administration that said that we couldn't do that, that we had to choose between the environment and jobs. This president is saying that's a false choice.
TAPPER: Again, I'm sorry, with respect, sir, you didn't answer my question.
PRUITT: Sure, I did. Sure, I did.
TAPPER: You said it was speculative, but all these CEOs -- all the CEOs in the United States, including from Mobil and Exxon and others say this is going to hurt the creation of U.S. jobs. This is going to hurt our industry. I understand that that is not the attitude or the belief of the coal industry, 100 percent in many --
PRUITT: It's not just the coal industry, Jake. I mean, the clean power plant alone which was a extension of what happened in Paris was a $292 billion hit to our economy, a contraction of up to 400,000 jobs in this country, including energy jobs. So, this is not -- this is not just -- that's not speculation. That's fact, that's objectively measured.
And what you're hearing I think was concern about what -- all that being said, Jake, this is not disengagement. The president has indicated that there is going to be continued discussion and engagement around, what, a deal that works for this country, that strikes the balance between the environment --
PRUITT: -- and the jobs and our economy.
TAPPER: So, what might that look like if it's not the 24 percent to 26 percent reduction? (CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: I mean, how much is the Trump administration willing to attempt to try to reduce carbon emissions? Fifteen percent?
PRUITT: Well, what we've done already from 2000 to 2014, a 18 percent reduction, again through technology and innovation. That should be the focus, not artificial targets that can't be measured -- or excuse me, met contracting our economy here while the rest of the world doesn't have to meet those targets.
TAPPER: As you know, sir, there are a lot of people in the national security community that also oppose the withdrawal from this agreement because they feel as though climate change is real. This keeps the United States engaged in the Middle East, which causes its own set of problems. Also, that climate change and the effects of it create problems in terms of migrants and stability throughout the world. What is the national security response to their concerns at the Pentagon?
PRUITT: You know what's interesting about that, Jake? We've already done this as a country once. As you know in 2001, the United States exited the Kyoto protocol. And if you go back and read the media accounts in 2001, in March and April and that time frame in 2001, the same arguments that are being made today were being made by the German chancellor. Our alliances were not impacting. They won't be impacted now.
TAPPER: Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said that if the U.S. withdraws from the agreement, it would signify that President Trump does actually believe that climate change is a hoax as he has tweeted. Does the president believe climate change is a hoax?
PRUTT: This is not about whether or not climate change is occurring or not. This is about making sure that America, as we negotiate CO2 reductions, that we do so with an America first approach. And that's why it was a bad deal for this country when it was signed. It's a bad deal today. It puts us at an economic disadvantage.
The president has said unequivocally that he is committed to continue discussions about CO2 reductions but with America at the forefront in those discussions.
TAPPER: Just a last simple question for you, sir, and I do appreciate your time and I do appreciate your taking the questions. Is climate change a threat to the United States in any way?
PRUITT: Look, I mean what we know is that we have procedures and statutes in this country that require us to take steps to reduce air pollutants and we're going to continue that. This is about international agreements that put this country at a disadvantage in writing those agreements, and making sure we put America's interests first. And that's continuing, Jake, as we go forward, and I really appreciate the president's leadership today.
TAPPER: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, thank you so much for your time, sir.
PRUITT: Thank you so much.
TAPPER: We appreciate it.
We're back with our panel.
And, Van, I feel like you might have a response.
JONES: I just -- I mean, the -- there is so much wrong -- so many wrong things.
OK. So, simple stuff, simple stuff.
[16:25:02] He says he is so proud that we reduced under the Clean Air Act our pollutants by 65 percent. That's a huge achievement. He's proud of it.
But carbon was not counted as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act until half way to the Obama term. So, then, Obama moves forward to try to now do what the Clean Air Act says to do and they stop him and they say it's terrible. So, you're either for the Clear Air Act which would then means -- and by the way, you're conservative Supreme Court agrees with this, then you have a responsibility to reduce the pollution or you're against it.
They talk against themselves all the time. They're for fracking, which is hurting coal and they're for coal. And when you have the word salad of nonsense coming from an EPA administrator who didn't say one word about the environment. His job is to be the environmental protection person. There was no protection in the speech.
This is part of why I think normal people -- you just saw Elon Musk pull out. You cannot deal with this White House because you cannot deal with facts, you cannot deal with science. You cannot deal with economics. You can't deal with jobs. You can't deal with anything but mythology and slogans, and that's where we are.
TAPPER: Steven Moore?
MOORE: Where we are on this issue -- I think the problem for the climate change fanaticism on the left. And I think there is a fanaticism and I think most people on the right agree with that, is you're going to have to find --
JONES: Is Pentagon fanatical?
MOORE: -- you're going to have to find solutions to this that don't --
JONES: Is Exxon fanatical? MOORE: Yes, I think there's a fanaticism. Listen to this about, you know, extinction and the oceans rising by ten feet. But here's the point --
TAPPER: There have been extinctions.
MOORE: But look --
TAPPER: That has happened.
MOORE: Look, here's my point -- you've got to find a way to deal with climate change issue in a way that doesn't destroy American jobs.
And one of the points that Pruitt made that I thought was very effective was that, look, we don't have to speculate about these regulations will do the economy. We already saw -- we already saw the effects of the clean power law --
JONES: No, no.
MOORE: -- which put tens of thousands of West Virginia coal miners out of their jobs.
HENDERSON: Automation is more of a factor.
JONES: I spent more time in West Virginia than you have. I guarantee you --
MOORE: Then you begin to wonder why you lost West Virginia and Ohio and Pennsylvania is because of that --
MOORE: These people don't matter.
TAPPER: Let's bring in, Gloria, for a second.
JONES: Hold on a second. Do not tell me, sir that I said that coal miners don't matter. That is not true.
MOORE: That's the message --
JONES: Hold on a second, no.
MOORE: That their jobs -- that they're collateral damage.
MOORE: I heard the left says that. That coal miners are collateral damage. JONES: You're talking to me.
MOORE: Not you, but people --
JONES: I have been in West Virginia more than you have.
MOORE: I've been there many times.
JONES: I've been fighting get the coal miner their pensions which the coal companies.
MOORE: I'm with you on that.
JONES: So, don't go there with me.
But I'm going to tell you this. It is very important for you to recognize that there have been people who have been arguing about American jobs. And there have been people who have been arguing that there can be a just transition, even for the coal miners because the coal miners especially in Appalachia, that coal you need to make the wind turbines is a complete falsehood that you're putting us against each other. And if you can't make an honest argument, just don't make the argument.
BORGER: Now, the president has to driver, OK? He said this is about jobs. He talked about growth of, what was it, 4 percent? Which is a, you know, good goal, right? But he's got to deliver.
He said this -- this would have cost us 6 million jobs, right, and this is going to help the coal miners, and he is going to save the coal miners. And he's going to revive the American economy. I mean, he gave a list at the beginning of his speech about all the works that he has done so far.
But now, he has set a marker down and he said this would have been bad. And I'm going to be this -- what I will do will be better. And so, he now has to deliver because he has made a change from not only Barack Obama but Republicans. And I think he is setting himself up.
MOORE: We've seen a pretty big increase in coal production already.
BORGER: But those coal miners, if they don't see the jobs, they're not going to be with him next time.
TAPPER: So, there are a lot parts of the world where the effects of climate change are being seen, and there are some parts of the United States, including Miami Beach.
And joining me now, Republican Congressman Carlos Curbelo of Florida who has seen those effects firsthand.
And, sir, you cofounded a bipartisan caucus on trying to come up with climate solutions. You tried to lobby the Trump administration to do the opposite of what we heard from President Trump today. What is your reaction to the announcement?
REP. CARLOS CURBELO (R-FL), WANTED U.S. TO STAY IN PARIS CLIMATE PACT: Jake, this is a strategic mistake and something that really sets us back. I don't know about the people of Pittsburgh who I have great respect for, but people in South Florida live between the Everglades and ocean. Most of us live near sea level and near the sea.
We're already seeing the effects of salt water intrusion into the Everglades which threatens our drinking water supply. We're also seeing coastal properties under threat, real estate, billions and billions of dollars. So, down here in South Florida, we understand that the environment and the economy are one and the same.
And we also understand that pollution and CO2 emissions don't respect national and even continental boundaries.