EPA chief defends Paris decision (entire event)

RELATIVELY SHORT ON HIS END.
WITH THAT, SECRETARY PRUITT.
>> IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU THIS
AFTERNOON.
I WANT TO FIRST BEGIN BY SAYING
THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE A VERY
COURAGEOUS DECISION YESTERDAY ON
BEHALF OF AMERICA.
HE PUT AMERICA'S INTEREST FIRST
WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL
AGREEMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL
DISCUSSIONS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE HIS
FORTITUDE.
THE DISCUSSION OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL WEEKS HAS BEEN ONE OF A
THOUGHTFUL DELIBERATION.
HE HEARD MANY VOICES.
VOICES ACROSS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF
VANTAGE POINTS.
AND THE PRESIDENT MADE A VERY
INFORMED AND I THINK THOUGHTFUL
AND IMPORTANT ZEGDECISION FOR T
COUNTRY'S BENEFIT.
WHEN IT COMES TO INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO
THINGS LIKE THE PARIS AGREEMENT,
WE HAVE NOTHING TO BE APOLOGETIC
ABOUT AS A COUNTRY.
WE'VE REDUCED OUR CO 2 FOOTPRINT
TO LEVELS OF THE EARLY 1990s.
FROM 2000 TO 2014, WE REDUCED
OUR CAR BON FOOTPRINT.
WHEN WE LOOK AT ISSUES LIKE THIS
WE ARE LEADING WITH ACTION AND
NOT WORDS.
I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT EXITING
PARIS DOES NOT MEAN
DISENGAGEMENT.
IN FACT THE PRESIDENT SAID
YESTERDAY THAT PARIS REPRESENTS
A BAD DEAL FOR THIS COUNTRY.
IT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE NOT GOING
TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION TO
EXPORT OUR INNOVATION, TO EXPORT
OUR TECHNOLOGY, TO DEMONSTRATE
HOW WE DO IT BETTER HERE IS I
VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO SEND.
HE INDICATED HE'S GOING TO
REENTER PARIS OR ENGAGE IN A
DISCUSSION WITH A NEW DEAL WITH
A COMMITMENT TO PUTTING AMERICA
FIRST.
THE PRESIDENT SAID HE'S GOING TO
PUT THE INTEREST OF AMERICAN
CITIZENS AT THE HEAD OF HIS
ADMINISTRATION.
THAT'S IN TRADE POLICY.
THAT'S IN NATIONAL SECURITY.
THAT'S IN BORDER SECURITY.
THAT'S IN RIGHT SIZING
WASHINGTON, D.C.
HE DID THAT WITH RESPECT TO HIS
DECISION YESTERDAY ON PARIS.
SO WITH THAT WE'LL BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT
HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAMES SO I'LL
POINT TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR TAKING OUR
QUESTIONS.
HOPING YOU CLEAR THIS UP ONCE
AND FOR ALL.
YES OR NO.
DOES THE PRESIDENT BELIEVE
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REALLY AND A
THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES?
>> YOU KNOW WHAT'S INTERESTING
ABOUT ALL THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD
THROUGH THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS
HAVE BEEN FOCUSSED ON ONE
SINGULAR ISSUE IS PARIS GOOD FOR
OUR COUNTRY.
THAT'S THE DISCUSSIONS I'VE HAD
WITH THE PRESIDENT.
THAT'S BEEN MY FOCUS.
THE FOCUS REMAINED ON WHETHER
PARIS PUT US AT A DISADVANTAGE.
AND IT DID.
IT PUT US AT AN ECONOMIC
DISADVANTAGE.
YOU MAY NOT KNOW THIS, BUT PAIR
R
RIS SET TARGETS AT 28 AND TW26%.
IT WAS A FAILED DEAL.
EVEN IF ALL TARGETS WERE MADE,
IT ONLY REDUCED THE TEMPERATURE
BY LESS THAN TWO-TENTHS OF ONE
DEGREE.
THAT IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT
FOCUSED UPON TO HOW IT IMPACT D
US ECONOMICALLY AND THERE WERE
THERE WERE GUIDE ENVIRONMENTAL
OBJECTIVES WERE ACHIEVED.
>> THE M.I.T. SCIENTISTS WHO
HELPED WITH THAT REPORT SAID,
QUOTE, TRUMP BADLY MISUNDERSTOOD
THE FINDINGS OF THAT REPORT AND
IN FACT IF WE TAKE NO ACTION
TEMPERATURES COULD WISE 5%.
SPECIFICALLY WHAT OTHER SCIENCE?
>> THERE WERE OTHER STUDIES THAT
WERE PUBLISHED AT THE TIME.
THE M.I.T. STUDY WAS SOMETHING
THAT AS YOU INDICATED SHOWED
TWO-TENTHS OF ONE DEGREE.
WHAT'S CLEAR ABOUT PARIS IS IF
YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE
CRITICISM THAT WAS BEING LEVIED
AGAINST THE PARIS AGREEMENT, IT
WASN'T JUST FROM FOLKS IN THIS
COUNTRY WHO WANT IT TO BE
RATIFIED OR WERE CRITICAL OF THE
PROCESSES.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEFT WAS VERY
CRITICAL OF PARIS.
IN FACT, JAMES HANSON IS AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO SAID AT THE TIME
IT WAS A FAKE AND A FRAUD AND
THE GENERAL COUNSEL SAID THE
SAME THING.
IF YOU GO BACK AND READ THE
MEDIA ACCOUNTS, THERE WAS MUCH
CHRYST
CRITICISM BECAUSE IT DID NOT
HOLD -- CHINA DID NOT HAVE TO
STEAK STEPS UNTIL 200030.
INDIA DID NOT HAVE UNTIL 2$220
TRILLION.
IN THIS COUNTRY WE HAD 26 TO 28%
IN GREEN HOUSE GASES WHICH
REPRESENTED THE CLEAN POWER
PLANT AND THE ENTIRE CLIMATE
ACTION AGENDA OF THE PAST
ADMINISTRATION.
YES, SIR?
>> I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE
FIRST QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED
THAT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER.
DOES THE PRESIDENT BELIEVE TODAY
THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX?
THAT SOMETHING HE SAID IN THE
CAMPAIGN WHEN THE POOL WAS IN
THE OVAL OFFICE HE REFUSED TO
ANSWER.
>> I DID ANSWER THE QUESTION.
I SAID THE DISCUSSIONS THE
PRESIDENT AND I HAVE HAD HAVE
BEEN FOCUSSED ON ONE KEY ISSUE.
IS PARIS GOOD OR BAD FOR THIS
COUNTRY.
THE PRESIDENT AND I FOCUSED OUR
ATTENTIONS THERE.
HE DETERMINED THAT IT WAS BAD
FOR THIS COUNTRY.
IT HURT US ECONOMICALLY.
IT DIDN'T ACHIEVE GOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL OUT COMES AND HE
MADE THE DECISION TO REJECT THE
PARIS DEAL.
YES, SIR?
>> GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU AND
OTHER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO OUTLINE THE
PRESIDENT'S USE ON CLIMATE
CHANGE, WHY SHOULD OTHER
COUNTRIES BELIEVE THAT THE
PRESIDENT WANTS TO NEGOTIATE A
DEAL IN GOOD FAITH?
>> AS I INDICATED IN MY COMMENTS
YESTERDAY, AND THE PRESIDENT
EMPHASIZED IN HIS SPEECH, THIS
ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTRY
AS A WHOLE, WE HAVE TAKEN
SIGNIFICANT STEPS TO REDUCE OUR
CO 2 FOOTPRINT TO LEVELS OF THE
PRE-1990S.
HOW DID WE ACHIEVE THAT?
BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY,
HORIZONTAL DRILLING.
YOU WON'T HEAR THAT FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LEFT.
WE NEED TO EXPORT CLEAN COAL
TECHNOLOGY.
WE NEED TO EXPORT THE TECHNOLOGY
AND NATURAL GRASS TO SHOWS
AROUND THE GLOBE, INDIA AND
CHINA AND HELP THEM LEARN FROM
US ON WHAT WE'VE DONE TO ACHIEVE
GOOD OUTCOMES.
WE'VE LED WITH ACTION, NOT
WORDS.
PARIS, TRULY, PARIS AT ITS CORE
WAS A BUNCH OF WORDS COMMITTED
TO VERY, VERY MINIMAL
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT AND COSTS
THIS COUNTRY A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF MONEY AND PUT US AT AN
ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE.
YES, SIR?
>> DOES THE PRESIDENT BELIEVE
THAT OR DOES THE ADMINISTRATION
BELIEVE THAT ANY ADDITIONAL DEAL
ON CARBON EMISSIONS, WHETHER
PARIS OR A SUBSEQUENT DEAL --
>> I'M SORRY, I MISSED THE FIRST
PART OF THE QUESTION.
>> DOES THE ADMINISTRATION
BELIEVE ANY DEAL, WHETHER A
REVISED PARIS AGREEMENT OR
ANOTHER CARBON EMISSIONS DEAL
NEEDS CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?
>> I THINK IT'S CLEAR WITH
RESPECT TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT
THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS BY THE
ADMINISTRATION THE PRESIDENT
EXPRESSED THIS IN HIS SPEECH
YESTERDAY.
I HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS THAT IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO
THE U.S. SENATE FOR
RATIFICATION.
I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE
OF THE DEAL, WHAT YOU ACTUALLY
NEGOTIATE.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXPORTING
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY TO THE
REST OF THE GLOBE, I WILL SAY
NOT.
I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO
THE U.S. SENATE.
I WOULD SAY, HOWEVER, THAT IF
YOU'RE SETTING TARGETS, IF
YOU'RE SETTING EMISSION TARGETS
THAT ARE ENFORCEABLE
DOMESTICALLY THROUGH REGULATION
OR STATUTE, THEN VERY MUCH SO.
THE VOICE OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE
HEARD THROUGH THE RATIFICATION
PROCESS.
>> OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF PEOPLE
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE ARE NOT
WILLING TO ANSWER THE
PRESIDENT'S VIEW ON CLIMATE
CHANGE.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR
PERSONAL VIEWS.
IN MARCH, YOU SAID THERE IS
TREMENDOUS DISAGREEMENT ABOUT
THE HUMAN IMPACT AND YOU WOULD
NOT AGREE THAT IT IS A
CONTRIBUTOR.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS
CAUGHT MY CONFIRMATION PROCESS
OR NOT, BUT IT'S A VERY INTENSE
PROCESS, BY THE WAY.
BUT I INDICATED THAT, IN FACT,
GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING,
HUMAN ACTIVITY CONTRIBUTES TO
IT, IN SOME MATTER.
MEASURING FROM PRECISION, THE
DEGREE OF HUMAN CONTRIBUTION IS
DIFFICULT.
BUT DOES IT POSE AN EXISTENTIAL
THREAT?
YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE HAVE
CALLED ME A CLIMATE DENIER.
IN FACT, MANY OF YOU, I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU SAW THIS ARTICLE OR
NOT, BUT THE CLIMATE OF COMPLETE
CERTAINTY BY BRETT STEPHENS
TALKED ABOUT -- IT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT QUOTE FROM THIS
ARTICLE.
ANYONE WHO HAS READ THE 2014
REPORT OF THE IPCC, KNOWS THAT
WHILE MODEST 0.8 DEGREES CELSIUS
WARMING OF THE EARTH HAS
OCCURRED SINCE 1980.
IT'S TRUE OF A SOPHISTICATED BUT
FALLIBLE MODELS OF WHICH
SCIE
SCIENTISTS PEER INTO THE FUTURE.
WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE
IS A DEBATE, A TRANSPARENT
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
AND WHAT PARIS REPRESENTS, WHAT
PARIS REPRESENTS IS AN
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT THAT PUT
THIS COUNTRY AT A DISADVANTAGE
WITH VERY LITTLE BENEFIT V
ENVIRONMENTALLY ACROSS THE
GLOBE.
>> WHY, THEN, IS THE ARCTIC ICE
SHELL MELTING?
WHY ARE THE SEA LEVELS RISING?
WHY ARE THE HOTTEST TEMPERATURES
IN THE LAST DECADE ESSENTIALLY
THE HOTTEST TEMPERATURES THAT
WE'VE SEEN ON RECORD?
>> THIS HAS BEEN SINCE THE
1990s, AS YOU KNOW.
>> SIR, WHEN NASA SAYS THAT 95%
OF THE EXPERTS IN THIS AREA
AROUND THE WORLD BELIEVE THAT
THE EARTH IS WARMING AND YOU ARE
UP THERE THROWING OUT
INFORMATION THAT SAYS, WELL,
MAYBE THIS IS BEING EXAGGERATED,
YOU TALK ABOUT CLIMATE ACTION
S
EXAG
EXAGGERATE FORS, IT SEEMS THAT
YOU ARE DENYING IT AND IT'S A
SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THE
PLANET.
>> I SAID THIS IN THE
CONFIRMATION PROCESS AND I'LL
SAY IT TODAY.
THERE IS -- WE HAVE DONE A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT AS A COUNTRY
TO ACHIEVE REDUCTIONS IN CO 2
AND WE HAVE DONE THAT THROUGH
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND
TO STAY ENGAGED.
WE ARE PART, AS YOU KNOW, THE
U.N. CCC AND THAT ENCOURAGES
VOICES BY SUBNATIONAL GROUPS AND
COUNTRIES ACROSS THE GLOBE AND
WE'RE GOING TO STAY ENGAGED AND
TRY TO WORK THROUGH AGREEMENTS
TO PUT AMERICA'S INTERESTS
FIRST.
THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT A
MESSAGE TO ANYONE IN THE WORLD
THAT AMERICA IS SOMEWHAT --
SHOULD BE APOLOGETIC OF ITS CO2
POSITION.
WE'RE MAKING TREMENDOUS
ADVANTAGES.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE TO
FRAMEWORKS AND AGREEMENTS THAT
PUT US AT AN ECONOMIC
DISADVANTAGE THAT HURT CITIZENS
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY.
YES, SIR?
>> YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR HEAD IN
THE SAND.
>> THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF THAT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ADMINISTRATOR.
YOUR FELLOW SENATOR SAID THAT
WHILE HE HAS CONFIDENCE IN THE
PRESIDENT IN THIS, HE IS VERY
NERVOUS ABOUT LOWER LEVEL CAREER
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN THE EPA
AND STATE DEPARTMENT IN ACTUALLY
EXECUTING WHAT'S DEEMED EXIT THE
PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD.
AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF EPA,
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO YOUR OWN
SENATOR?
>> WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS
THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID
UNEQUIVOCALLY YESTERDAY THAT THE
TARGETS SET IN PARIS, THE 26 TO
28% TARGETS ARE NOT ENFORCEMENT
AND NOT COMPLIED WITH.
THE GREEN CLIMATE FUND, WHERE
THE UNITED STATES PROVIDED $3
BILLION IN INITIAL FUNDING, THAT
IS NOT GOING TO CONTINUE.
THAT IS GOING TO BE IMMEDIATE.
NOW, THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS THAT
ARE ONGOING WITH THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT ON THE STEPS THAT
WE'LL BE TAKING TO EXECUTE THE
WITHDRAWAL AND THE EXIT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING
TO HAPPEN OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL
WEEKS.
BUT AS FAR AS THE TARGETS THAT
ARE CONCERNED, THE GREEN CLIMATE
FUND, IT'S IMMEDIATE AND IT'S
SOMETHING THAT IS CLEAR.
YES, MA'AM?
>> EUROPEAN LEADERS HAVE MADE IT
VERY CLEAR THAT THE DEAL CAN'T
BE RENEGOTIATED.
SO HOW DOES THE PRESIDENT
RENEGOTIATE A DEAL WHEN THE
OTHER PARTIES AREN'T WILLING TO
COME TO THE TABLE?
>> WELL, AS HE INDICATED,
WHETHER IT'S PART OF THE PARIS
FRAMEWORK OR A NEW DEAL, IT'S
EITHER APPROACH.
>> BUT THEY WON'T SIT DOWN AT
THE TABLE WITH HIM.
>> BUT THAT'S UP TO THEM, ISN'T
IT?
THE UNITED STATES HAS A SEAT AT
THE TABLE.
AFTER ALL, WE ARE THE UNITED
STATES AND LEADING WITH RESPECT
TO CO2 PRODUCTION.
WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS.
IF NATIONS AROUND THE WORLD WANT
TO SEEK TO LEARN FROM US ON WHAT
WE'RE DOING TO REDUCE OUR CO2
FOOTPRINT, WE'LL SHARE THAT WITH
THEM AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
WILL OCCUR IN THE FUTURE AND
WE'LL REACH OUT AND RESIP CRATE
W
RESIP INDICATE AND DO THAT.
>> SHOULDN'T YOU TELL THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WHETHER OR NOT
THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT
CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX?
>> AS I INDICATED, THERE'S
ENOUGH TO DO WITH THE PARIS
CLIMATE ACCORD AND THAT'S WHAT
OUR FOCUS HAS BEEN OVER THE LAST
SEVERAL WEEKS.
I'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION A
COUPLE TIMES.
YES, SIR.
THIS GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE.
THIS GENTLEMAN RIGHT HERE.
YES.
>> THANK YOU.
ISN'T IT OF CONCERN THAT THE
UNITED STATES HAS BROKEN A
PROMISE TO 190 COUNTRIES AND THE
PRESIDENT DID NOT ADDRESS THAT
PARTICULAR POINT?
AND, SECOND, YOU'VE SEVERAL
TIMES RAISED THAT THE LOWERING
OF CO2 LEVELS, ISN'T THE REASON
BECAUSE OF BLOCKING THE SMOKE
STACK SPEWS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED
THE KIND OF REGULATIONS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION IS NOW OPPOSING?
>> AS I INDICATED, LARGELY, WE
HAVE REDUCED OUR CO2 FOOTPRINT
THROUGH INNOVATION AND
TECHNOLOGY AND NOT THE LEAST OF
WHICH IS THE HYDRAULIC FRACKING.
>> HOW DOES THAT HELP OUR
CREDIBILITY?
>> TRULY, IF IT'S A PROMISE
ENFORCEABLE AND GOING TO
OBLIGATE THIS COUNTRY, THEN IT
SHOULD HAVE BEEN RATIFIED AS A
TREATY.
RIGHT?
THE EXPOSURE HERE TO US
DOMESTICALLY WAS 26 TO 28%
TARGETS THAT WERE PART OF AN
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT AND
THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE
CLEAN AIR ACT THAT ACTUALLY
ALLOW FOR LAWSUITS TO BE FILED
DOMESTICALLY TO COMPEL
REGULATION TO MEET THOSE KINDS
OF PERCENTAGES.
THIS WAS AS MUCH ABOUT A
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL
CONCERNS AS ANYTHING ELSE AND
THE PRESIDENT DEALT DECISIVELY
WITH THAT.
BUT LET'S, AGAIN, THE IMPORTANT
THING HERE IS IT PUT US AT AN
ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE.
THE WORLD APPLAUDED WHEN WE
JOINED PARIS.
AND YOU KNOW WHY?
I THINK THEY APPLAUDED BECAUSE
THEY KNEW IT WOULD PUT THIS
COUNTRY AT A DISADVANTAGE.
THE EUROPEAN LEADERS, WHY THEY
WANT US TO STAY IN, THEY KNOW IT
WILL CONTINUE TO SHACKLE OUR
ECONOMY, THOUGH WE ARE LEADING
THE WORLD WITH RESPECT TO OUR
CO2 PRODUCTION.
THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT.
I'VE GOT TO HEAD TO THE

EPA chief defends Paris decision (entire event)

Latest Posts