fight for climate change. it hasn t worked before. i am skeptical that it will work politically. stick with the left is showing it has become an issue of almost religious beliefs. you could shutdown every coal mine in america, the effect on the climate, on temperature, would be negligible. you couldn t measure it. if this is such a popular issue, a consensus issue, when the democrats at the white house when obama concluded, why didn t he go to the senate? we have a constitution. there s a reason why we have provisions because you want to treaty to have substance and permanence. you go to the senate, get a consensus in the country, expressed by a two-thirds majority rather than some executive agreement like i would say the iran deal which they knew would not have consensus. the kyoto agreement was voted down by 99-1. because people didn t want it, and i think if democrats are so attached to this and think this
agreement that causes a great economic damage for no environmental benefit is not a bad thing. it s a mark of leadership to say why would we do this? spewing the president saying in a statement that he is open to renegotiating the deal. if the obstructionists want to get together, let s make them nonobstructionist. we will get back in the deal and make a good and we won t be closing up factories and we won t be losing our jobs and we will sit down with the democrats and all of the people that represent either the paris record or something that we can do that s much better than the paris accord. and i think the people of our country will be thrilled. i don t know how sincere or realistic that is but that s the right idea. i m all in favor of an international treaty on climate
framework that put america second. bret: i saw the u.s. chamber of commerce did an analysis of jobs potentially lost from adhering to the elements of the paris accord but there were 25-plus companies that tried to lobby the administration to stay in, saying it would lose jobs. we heard that in the montage that by pulling out, it will lose jobs. what we know is there was a contraction occurring in energy sector jobs. $2.5 trillion reduction in gdp. up to 400,000 jobs by the u.s. chamber study. that is objectively measured. the discussions about our inability to export green technology, i don t think that s the case. some said this process concerns with respect to national security. we have done this before. we pulled out of the kyoto protocol and 2001. if you read in march and april
where it won t pass and it would be a poison pill they would hand over. for the president this is seen as fulfilling a campaign promise and this is where he has been for a very long time. he doesn t see the point. he think it s questionable science. we ve seen that over and over again. this is a nonbinding agreement. i think what the implications are something that needs to be thought about. what it really means. symbolically it will send a strong message. this sas the second step after the kyoto agreement which was a real agreement this is different. obama did this, i think, by executive mandate. this wasn t something he had to go the senate about. pulling out is really easy. david drucker, whether global warming is a hoax, the scientific community has decided donald trump goes back and forth on it depending what he wants in that moment, but the money was a big part of his factor here also, right?
he wasn t getting rid of all of the mechanisms. this was something every single country in the world except for syria and nicaragua has agreed to. the interesting thing is, even today when white house officials briefed, they could not say whether president trump president trump are believed human activity causes climate change or not. that s a consensus, an overwhelming consensus around the world. bret: mollie, the environmental leadership. as you look at the map and the three countries, the u.s., syria, and nicaragua. we are talking about how it wasn t binding but it s true that the idea was to set up agencies within the administrative state to enforce what we had committed to under this accord and that would have cost $3 trillion the next few decades, would ve cost more than 6 million jobs. i m not taking part in an