>> good morning. it's friday, june 2nd. 8:00 here in the east. we begin with president trump defying the world pulling out of the paris climate agreement to score a political win with his base. the leaders of germany, italy and france condemn this move and warn the president the deal is irreversible and will not be renegotiated. >> the hits keep coming for the white house. james comey is going to testify next week on thursday. the question is going to be what will he reveal about his private conversations with president trump? all while the administration turns to the supreme court to implement the president's six-nation travel ban immediately. cnn has every angle covered. let's begin with joe johns live at the white house. good morning, joe. >> reporter: the president willing to accept the condemnation of the world in order to keep a campaign promise he made to his base. a base that was looking forward
to hearing the president do this. nonetheless, this is the kind of thing that created a real problem for u.s. standing across the globe. >> the united states will withdraw from the paris climate accord. >> reporter: president trump making good on his campaign promise to withdraw from the landmark 195-nation agreement but leaving the door open for a potential new deal. >> 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 krcan, that's great. >> reporter: the speech focusing that the accord is hurting american jobs. >> 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. >> reporter: time-oouting the decision puts america first. >> our withdraw reasserts america's position of sovereignty. we don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won't be. >> reporter: sources tell cnn the president was dead set on this decision with a nationalist wing of his administration prevailing while his daughter, ivanka and son-in-law, jared kushner, who were absent from the announcement pushed for him to stay in the deal along with secretary of state rex tillerson. >> as someone that cares deeply about the environment, which i do, i cannot in good conscious support a deal that punishes the united states. i was elected to represent the citizens of pittsburgh, not paris. >> reporter: the mayor of
pittsburgh hitting back after trump invoked the name of his city. >> the values that we have in this city follow right along the lines of what the paris agreement stated. >> reporter: after the announcement, white house officials struggling on whether the president still believes climate change is a hoke. former president obama who signed the agreement responding in a rare statement saying "the deal was meant to protect the world we leave to our children." adding "the nations that remain will reap the benefits in jobs and industries created." >> donald trump is not telling the truth to the american people. it's voluntary. the president of the united states could have simply changed that without walking away from the whole agreement. >> reporter: backlash growing among american business leaders who lobbied president trump to stay in the deal. tesla and space x ceo quitting the president's economic
counsel. general electric ceo tweeting industry must now lead and not depend on government. cities and states are also vowing to step up. dozens of governors and mayors across the country pledging to uphold the commitments of the paris agreement. the president this morning is on a social media spree retweeting favorable things people have said about his paris accord decision. today sean spicer, the white house press secretary, is expected to hold one of high school increasingly rare on-camera briefings and is expected to be accompanied by the epa administrator who, of course, is a big defender of the president's decision. back to you. >> thank you very much. let's bring in cnn politics reporter and editor at large, chris alizza and former adviser to the trump campaign, steven moore, for the rematch with cnn
global economic analyst and associated editor of "the financial times." the clash of the economic titans. we'll get to that momentarily. i do want you guys to debate the facts of this. let's talk politics with chris. the president is keeping a campaign promise. what more do we need to know about this? >> that's right. i keep returning to this. remember steve bannon there was a tweet that showed steve bannon's office where he had taken down a bunch of stuff and put up a floor to ceiling white boards in which he had written all of the promises or at least a lot of the promises donald trump made during the campaign. he was keeping track of what he said he would do and what he accomplished and what was left to be done. if you need a blueprint of what donald trump does here, he tries to keep promises he made to his base. he doesn't keep all of them.
obviously the decision about jerusalem and the capital of israel yesterday he did not. he tries to keep most of them. he defaults to that position. i also think there's a broader philosophical point here. i think this is trumpism realized. this is make america first. make america great. this idea that sort of you heard in the clips you played. these global activists, foreign capitals that we've been kowtowing for too long. we refuse to acknowledge it because we're afraid they'll be scorned and world community will scorn us. donald trump doesn't care about that. donald trump is going to do the right thing by the steel worker in the manufacturing communities of the midwest. that's what he cares about. he believes this decision is an affirmation of that though it's somewhat debatable but that's why this decision was made. >> quick other point. just tell me if i'm making too much of this. you got all of the big fossil fuel makers.
chevron, shell and exxon. you have china and russia all on the same page when it comes to global warming, which was the underlying premise of these accords. if you read in the beginning of the accord documents, it's about their mutual recognition of everybody except syria and us that global warming, greenhouse gases have to be addressed. what does it mean that none of the advisers so close to the president on this decision will even acknowledge having talked to him about whether or not he believes in global warming? >> i find that odd. obviously donald trump said during the campaign or in prior that he believed climate change was a hoax. that's his words. >> created by china to steal our jobs. >> that's right. they have steadfastly refused including kellyanne conway this morning to engage in any conversations saying you have to ask the president. if they're smart, they're understand that engaging with this question, particularly if donald trump is going to say anything similar to it's a hoax
created by china, is a massive distraction from what they are trying to push, which is this is about jobs and about putting american workers first. this is about rejecting the salons of europe. i would say donald trump applauds when a joke is made about him because he believes that is good for him and is a validation of why he was elected. but that view -- he did not use the words climate change one time in what was quite a long speech yesterday. that was not accidental. >> let's talk about the facts. the president says that this is about jobs, and in fact this economic research group, this study that he's basing his numbers on, says that if the u.s. stayed with paris, it would cost the u.s. 2.7 million jobs over the next eight years. what's your retort? >> wrong. this research has been questioned by many experts. what i find really amazing about
the president's argument is that if you want to create jobs, you need to stay at the forefront of green tech and clean tech. that's where the job growth is. let's just look at the coal industry. this is something that we can keep these coal jobs in america and will somehow go to china if we stay in paris. coal jobs were at their peak right after world war ii. they fell before the epa was even invented because we were switching to different methods, more high-tech methods of producing coal. even now, coal is actually not the most competitive kind of fuel from an economic standpoint. >> you just reject those numbers y outright? >> i do. if you look at the coverage of the study which was paid for partly by the chamber anti-climate change, i don't think those numbers stack up. you hear ceos saying, please, let's stay engaged in climate change. that's where job growth is.
>> you say that argument is a lot of greenhouse gas. why? >> well put. i like that one. we did our own study and found about 500,000 job losses. you don't have to imagine what this would be like. we saw what regulations under obama on climate change did to the coal industry where we lost several tens of thousands of coal miners partly because of lower gasoline prices, natural gas prices but because of regulations that stuck a knife in their back. those statistics that cnn keeps putting up about the number of jobs, wind, solar, the number for the oil and gas industry is closer to 6 million to 10 million jobs. so when you talk about moving beyond fossil fuels, you're talking about not just tens of thousands but millions of people in the petroleum industry that would be put out of business. >> did that have anything to do with the paris accord?
>> sure it does. the whole agenda here. listen to what climate change people are talking about. they want to keep fossil fuels in the ground and move to virtually 100% "clean energy" within the next 50 years, which would put a huge number of people out of work. >> when you say the climate change people, does that mean you don't believe in global warming? >> i'm a skeptic. i think the idea that this is subtle science is nonsense. there are thousands of scientists who really question this. i want to make one other quick point if i may. the europeans talk about how the united states isn't stepping up here. let's be very honest about this. first of all, there is a climate change deal already. europe was a signatory to that. we were not. europe never abided by any of that. and the second point is that we, the united states, we're not the villain here. we have reduced our carbon
emissions more than the europeans have and we didn't sign these agreements. >> okay. >> i'll agree with one thing. i think the u.s. is doing more, particularly u.s. business is doing more already than it gets credit for. i think one of the things that was fascinating actually about president trump's speech is he wasn't actually denying the science of climate change. he wasn't coming out and saying i don't believe in this. he left a little bit of a door open to what i suspect the next few weeks will be a broader conversation among business leaders. ceos will come out and say let's think of other ways to engage in this issue. business wants to be engaged with climate change because they know it will make the u.s. more competitive. we don't want to see china and europe getting ahead of the conversation about standards and smart grids. we want to be part of that conversation. >> so brother moore is advancing a political argument about these thousands of scientists that question this. steve, it's just not true.
there's overwhelming consensus in the skiecientific community. the forecasts, that can get very shaky. but not the underlying presence for it. weigh in. >> i would urge people to read donald trump's speech. i'm not saying you should take out of your day. but if you have time over the weekend, read the speech. it's not really about climate change. it's much more about the donald trump world view. i don't say that as a critique. i don't say that as a critique. i say it as this is -- steve and i were talking about this yesterday. this is trumpism. everyone says what is donald trump really think? what does make america great? what is that slogan? read the speech. you may not agree with it, but it is pure trumpism which is the
capitals of europe laugh at us. they mock us because we make bad deals. it's a much more cynical world view that we have been taken advantage of by these people and we have gone up above and over our commitment. this is to steve's point. we've gone above our commitments. they have not. we're being rooked in a fundamental way and i will not have it anymore. i wouldn't say you have to agree or disagree. you should read it because it's really important to sort of understand how he views the world and how different that is from people who have been president before him. >> let me add to that. we as conservatives are very, very skeptical of international deals for two reasons. one, we are concerned about sovereignty. we don't want what happened in britain where you had brussels bureaucrats telling people in britain what kind of tea pots they could use because they're in violation of some kind of climate change deal. the other point is that it
really is true. you look at all of these deals and these other countries never followthrough. i made this point yesterday. they are building dozens and dozens of coal plants as we're shutting down ours. yet they're lecturing us about climate change. you have to watch what they do and not listen to what they say. >> it's true that china is building plants but cleaning up existing ones and staying at the forefront of green technology and making green tech, wind, solar power, a strategic sector. that's something that the u.s. needs to really -- the worry is that if we pull back from the conversation, if we pull back from being involved in international standards setting and international conversation, that we lose some of that. that's what business leaders are concerned about. >> what you're saying is this is the future -- by the way, none of us know what the energy future is. we don't know if it's nuclear, wind -- >> we know it's not going to be fossil fuels long-term. >> that's nonsense. ten years ago, you know, barack
obama was running around the country talking about us running out of oil and gas and now we have more oil and gas than any other country in the world because of the shale gas revolution. so nobody knows whether it's going to be new kinds of nuclear, solar, wind, but we do know that government doesn't know the answer to that. >> steve, are you saying that by pulling out of the paris climate accord that 2.7 million jobs that the president predicted would be lost are going to be kept here now? >> i think it's going to save a lot of jobs. the regulatory burden on america cost $2 trillion to the american economy. donald trump, to chris's ducing regulations -- >> you can't tell those coal miners in need that their industry is going to somehow come back and those jobs -- >> it's going to come back. >> it's not.
>> it's up 16% this year already. >> any economist in the energy sector will tell you that renewables are already as competitive as coal and that they're going to become more so in the future. these jobs are not coming back. they were gone long before the regulatory issue even came to the fore. we need to help train those people in new areas and give them hope. real hope. >> if that is true, we're having a big debate, chris, in the next few months about eliminating all of these subsidies to the wind and solar energy. they're embedded in the tax code. we want to get rid of those and create a level playing field. if we get rid of the subsidies of the wind industry, there's no industry left. how can it be competitive if the only way it can survive is with subsidies. >> i talked to a lot of ceo and without question they're saying we have got to stay at the forefront of green tech. i'll tell you something. even a lot of coal executives won't say so on the record, they
are happy with the idea of staying ahead in these technologies because they use them. things like carbon sequestering. it's very crucial. this is really an important industry for the u.s. to stay ahead in. >> one quick thing, i do not know what marocain means and i don't know how to spell it. >> it's a fabric. i also look forward to hearing you explain what covfefe means. for a later date. thank you, panel. all right. so what is the white house saying this morning about the deal and why they're pulling t out? what's their message? the interior secretary joins us next making the case on why this move is better for you. to inspect difficult-to-reach pipelines, so we can detect leaks before humans can see them. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.
hey, i've got the trend analysis. hey. hi. hi. you guys going to the company picnic this weekend? picnics are delightful. oh, wish we could. but we're stuck here catching up on claims. but we just compared historical claims to coverages. but we have those new audits. my natural language api can help us score those by noon. great. see you guys there. we would not miss it. watson, you gotta learn how to take a hint. i love to learn.
it can seem like triggers pop up everywhere. watson, you gotta learn how to take a hint. luckily there's powerful, 24-hour, non-drowsy claritin. it provides relief of symptoms that can be triggered by over 200 different allergens. live claritin clear. neutrogena® hydro boost hydrating tint. wake up skin. the first water gel foundation with hyaluronic acid it plumps, quenches... delivers a natural, flawless look. this is what makeup's been missing. neutrogena®
>> we don't want other leaders in 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. [ applause ] >> that was president trump announcing the united states withdraw from the paris climate accord. the move is a sweeping step that fulfills a long held campaign promise. last night and this morning white house officials have not yet been able to say whether trump thinks that climate change is a hoax. joining us now is u.s. secretary of the interior, ryan zinke.
good morning, mr. secretary. >> good morning. >> nice to have you here. does the president think that climate change is a hoax? >> well, the agreement, which is the question of the day really, it's not about climate change, it's about the agreement itself. if you read it -- i read it thoroughly, it's a bad deal. u.s. pays for it. we give china and russia and india a walk and m.i.t. says if everyone was a part of the agreement and meet their obligations, it's negligible. >> i do want to get to that. the overarching question is does the president still think that climate change is a hoax? he tweeted about that in the past. does he today believe it's a hoax? >> i certainly don't believe it's a hoax. again, i think at the end of the day this agreement, what the president's action did, we need to focus on the agreement, we
need to renoesh egotiate it. we need to make a deal that's in our best interest. america leads the world in clean energy. we reduced our emissions. if we're going to do this right, the agreement should be fair. >> europe has said they have no interest in renegotiating. they're happy with as it exists. i think that it is -- >> i'm sure the world is happy. >> this is relevant because it does inform the president's decision making. do you believe that climate change is happening? does the president? >> i do not speak for the president. i've been in conversation with him. i think this agreement -- >> have you asked him if he believes in climate change? >> the president picked me to be the secretary of interior. i laid out where i think climate is changing. i think man has had an influence. what that influence is, what we can do about it, even the best
modeling, best modeling that's used is inaccurate yesterday and can't predict today. i do think if we're going to make an agreement, let's make an agreement on this. agreement that's fair. that doesn't give a free walk to india, china, russia, that we don't pay -- that everyone shares, you know, a common burden rather than the u.s. sharing almost the entire -- well, 30% of the burden up front. this last administration gave $1 billion in cash. >> what's interesting -- not to interrupt you but it was voluntary. the president could have changed the tenants of the agreement. it's up to every country what they want to do so the president could have done that. again, i just need to -- we'll get to details. i just want to get to this overarching question. here's what the president has tweeted about climate change. he said in february of 2015, lowest temperatures ever in much
of the united states. ice caps at record size. they change the name from global warming to climate change. here's where he calls it a hoax. this was in 2014. he says massive record setting snowstorm and freezing temperatures in u.s. smart that global warming hoaxsters changed the name to climate change. then he has lots and lots of dollar signs. he thought it was a hoax. he's on the record as saying it's a hoax. are you tried to convince him otherwise? >> i have said in committee that it's not a hoax but details -- you talk about agreement. the agreement says only you can accelerate. it doesn't say in the agreement that they can veto. this is an unusually bad agreement. if you read through it, it's about 20 pages, i invite you to read through it as i have done, it doesn't say voluntary for the united states. we give $3 billion up front. we lose jobs. everyone else takes a walk and it doesn't do anything at the end of the day. so i think the president was
right in taking this position. if we're going to deal with climate change, let's deal with it on a fair basis and what makes sense for america. he's the president of the united states. he's not president of the world. >> so if you believe in climate change and the president thinks it's a hoax, and you feel that the u.s. should do something, i assume about climate change, how are you going to convince the president that it's not a hoax? >> well, i think we go forward here. we make an agreement that makes sense for us. i'm the steward of one-fifth of our territory and i have more energy potential within the territory that i have as a steward than anybody. and so i want to make sure we have clean air, clean water. we go forward on technology. we're all of the above. i'm all of the above energy. there's exciting possibilities in solar, in wind, in nuclear, in gas. so i'm all of the above. i can tell you the world is a
lot safer when america is stronger, and we should not negotiate these deals. i'm not surprised about the deal. the last administration also negotiated the uranium deal and that hasn't worked out either. i think at the end of the day, climate change, let's sit down and negotiate a good deal for everybody that everyone shares equal burden rather than the u.s. having to share more than anyone else. we have to reduce our carbon footprint immediately. china, the biggest gun, they can wait until 2030. >> are you concerned that now china can take the reigns and step into the leadership position? >> i view china as a competitor, not an enemy. i view russia as an aggressor and not an enemy. >> your competitors will now take leadership in this agreement. >> i think we are taking leadership right now by saying, look, we're not going to take
these bad deals anymore. we're not going to accept a negotiated deal done out of desperation and clearly it was. just like tif it doesn't make sense for the united states, i don't think we should negotiate these deals. u.s. already leads clean energy technology. nobody does it better. i just got, you know, from a trip in alaska, i can tell you nobody does it better than we do. we're cleaner. we're more efficient. our regulatory environment is the best in standard in the world. if you want to see catastrophe in energy development, go to the middle east and go to africa. better to produce it here under our regulatory framework. >> just so we understand, what you're saying is we're going to lead syria and nicaragua. european countries say they're happy with it and won't we
negotiate the accord. where does that leave us? >> i don't think the united states will bow or bend to ni nicaragua. >> in terms of three countries not connected, syria, nicaragua and the u.s. >> that's silly. the united states is still the world's leader. if you want to look at obligations of the countries, look at nato. who contributes to nato? everyone is supposed to do 2% of the gdp. who does it? we do. >> we were seen as leaders in this accord. we back out. that gives an opening to china. >> well, i would imagine if you're a foreign country, you would love this agreement the u.s. signed up to because every competitor advantage to the foreign countries like russia, like china, like india. but we hold the bag. i think the president did the right thing and said what's in the best interest for our country? what's in the best interest of
cleaner energy? lo this agreement by m.i.t. standards if everyone meets their obligations is negligentable. so what is the exact agreement say? we hold the bag. we pay for it and it doesn't make a significant difference. that's not a good deal. >> secretary ryan zinke, thank you very much for being on "new day." >> you're very welcome. have a great day. >> interesting. if you pick up these themes in these conversations, if the white house doesn't want to talk about climate, what was behind withdrawing from the climate deal? was it just about erasing another obama signature move? is this part of a strategy to undo the last administration? we'll get into the politics that are at play here next. think again. this is the new new york. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit.
president trump's decision to pull out of the paris climate agreement is said to be nothing about the climate but about the economic impact on jobs. it is one of the most controversial moves to date but it is the right move politically for the president. so let's discuss with cnn senior political commentators. rick, they say this isn't about the climate. no one around him who helped make the decision will even acknowledge that they talked to him about global warming. they say they don't know whether he still believes it's a hoax or anything else. they don't want to talk about the science. they say it's all about business and delivering on a promise. what do you say? >> that's not what their saying. you heard the secretary say it. even if the agreement was agreed to, it would have a negligible effect on climate. you're signing up to an agreement that doesn't do anything. the agreement has no impact on the climate. that's the point that the administration is making. what it does have an impact on
is it has an impact on american jobs. impact on working men and women that donald trump pledged to fight for. and i can tell you from someone from pittsburgh who he mentioned in that speech, it's being hailed very positively in our region. we are the center of the shale revolution and a lot of jobs and energy being created in our area, and we're very excited. particularly a center of coal also. it's good for us and good for the midwest generally speaking. >> governor, rick and i can disagree. he didn't mention climate change in his speech yesterday. nobody will even acknowledge that they spoke to him about the issue. to me, that's ducking the climate aspect of this. rick can see it differently. that's fine. that's why he's on the show. from your perspective, this is a job killer and wouldn't really help the environment that much anyway. u.s. had to get out.
obama cut a bad deal. >> it's totally wrong. this sector, the clean energy sector is the fastest growing in the united states. solar grew at 12 times the national economy last year. in pennsylvania, rick, there are 57,000 people who work in the clean energy sector. there are 7,500 who work in the coal sector. you don't want to leave coal sector people behind. you want to invest in advance technology but this administration cut job training by 40%. this to me is so backwards looking. it's not that trump just made a political decision. he made a decision to have the u.s. shrink globally to ignore scientists, the ceos and states and cities. 70 mayors signing, including the mayor of pittsburgh, signing a letter saying this is bad for the u.s. why would we deny this fast
growing economic sector? it's so backwards. >> rick, i don't think we're denying any economic sector. the mayor of pittsburgh represents 300,000 people in a region of 2.5 million. the region, which has a lot of the natural resources, not the city of pittsburgh, is very, very supportive of what the president has done number one. number two, i'm for clean energy. i'm for renewables. ethanol. i'm a big strong supporter of ethanol. i help the ethanol industry as best i can. and the president has a big decision to make on ethanol. i hope he makes the right one. it will reduce our carbon footprint and that's a good thing. i'm involved with a waste energy company. i think renewbles and clean energy is a great thing, but i believe in the market. what the president is saying is, look, we don't want artificial constraints to be put on the united states where we bear the burden of having to drive you on emissions while china increases
emissions until 2030 and india increases emissions and china is biggest emitter of pollution and every other country basically can increase except us. that's just a bad deal. >> this is not a bad deal. this is why -- you can be arrogant and say 125 countries is wrong and only the u.s. is right. china has shut down or stopped the plans for building 103 coal plants. chi china is investing more in renewable energy than the entire electric sector in the united states. china we have just given them the opportunity to lead the world. what we're doing with this agreement is so thto shrink ame leadership. i don't think america first means america alone or donald trump alone because he alienated states and cities across the
country. it's a terrible decision. >> rick santorum, last word to you. >> i hate giving him the last word. >> address all of these companies including fossil fuel giants that came out and said this was the wrong move. what do you say to them? >> big companies love regulation. the guys that hate regulation, the guys that this kills are the small energy companies. the small businesses who have to deal with this incredible regulation. it does not surprise me that big companies like big regulation. one last point. they canceled a bunch of coal firepower plants but they are building a lot more. they're putting more in renewables but they have huge number of -- they have many more people in china. much more electric needs than we do. it's relatively not the same. >> it's going to be china number one. >> that's ridiculous. >> all right. rick, jennifer, appreciate it. alison? >> we do have breaking news right now. the labor department just releasing the may jobs report.
chief business correspondent christine romans is here with the big headline. >> i want to talk about the jobless rate. 16-year low. the lowest jobless rate since 2001. 4.3%. this is a level approaching what economists call full employment. that means companies are going to start to really get hungry to find workers because you have an unemployment rate that's so low. one of the reasons why that unemployment rate dropped is because people -- some people dropped out of the labor market in the month. that will be interesting to see if that is a trend or something that reverses. let me show you sectors. loss in jobs in manufacturing. gained jobs in mining. about 400 of these jobs happen to be coal mining jobs as you know that's the center of the president's jobs debate. health care, 24,000 jobs created in health care. that is what we've seen for several years. a big headline about job creation as well. this is the 80th month in a row. 80 months in a row of private sector job creation. that's a record. i will point out, however,
you're seeing a slower pace of job creation this time this year from february to april. president likes to taut how he's revving up the job market. job gains are strong. steadily strong. not as strong as last year this time and the year before. that's what the numbers tell us. >> thank you very much. >> pretend that was me talking. there's a fierce debate. you have this was the world laughing at america for pulling out of a situation of leadership for environmental stewardship based on the promise of more jobs. or it was trump making america great again. which is the political argument that wins? we get the bottom line with fareed zakaria next. it's an important question you ask,
but one i think with a simple answer. we have this need to peek over our neighbor's fence. and once we do, we see wonder waiting. every step you take, narrows the influence of narrow minds. bridges continents and brings this world one step closer. so, the question you asked me. what is the key? it's you. everything in one place, so you can travel the world better.
the president's decision to pull out of the paris climate accord, what does it mean for the u.s. and the rest of the world. fareed zakaria, great to see you here. we've had president's supporters on this morning and they say it doesn't do anything about the u.s.'s leadership. we're still continuing to lead at home. they say in terms of clean
energy. we're just not going to do it in this lousy agreement. these are their words. >> part of the reason that these arguments can be made is because frankly they use falsehoods. so rick santorum was on and when jennifer points out that in pittsburgh the line from donald trump's speech clean energy jobs are twice as many, 60,000 versus 30,000 of coal, oil and natural gas put together, there are twice as many clean energy jobs. he says in the region, well, the sierra club has a good analysis using department of energy data in 41 states plus the district of columbia, clean energy jobs vastly exceed the number for coal and natural gas. >> what does that have to do with the paris climate accord? we're doing that here. >> it says to everybody we're going to try to produce energy with certain constraints on carbon emission. in other words, you should favor those kind of energy that have
the lower carbon emissions. the whole world is doing it. if we don't have that c constraint, you're going to go to dirty coal, which is cheap, and of course you'll go to other forms of dirty energy. why do we have the greatest technology sector in the world? and why do we have the greatest computer companies in the world? in the 1950s, the united states government bought over half of all computer chips produced, none of which made money. much too expensive. relied on government subsidies and government contracts for almost 20 years the united states government was the main purchaser of computer chips, mainframe computers. that seeded this extraordinary industry thwhere we dominate. the same thing is happening in solar except this time there's a race. china, germany and united states are all doing it. the question is do we want to be left behind? of course right now these places
still need some help. the help that clean energy gets is nothing like the help that oil, natural gas get. the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are in the $500 billion range. >> they're just in different forms. they're more obvious right now with the emerging energies. >> complicated amendments to the cat code. >> what i don't get is the surprise by critics of this. this decision checks every box for trump that matters to them right now. undo obama. america was weak. now it's strong. the rest of the world is a bunch of leeches on us. climate change, let's ignore it. the idea that the men and women who help the president make this decision never talk to him about the climate when it is a climate accord. it's laughably false. they don't care about that. their base doesn't care and focus on jobs. checks every box. a no-brainer for him politically. overvalues the short-term. politicians always do.
>> trump has been so erratic and unpredictable that i'm not sure i would entirely agree. there are a lot of areas where there's been much more bluster than actual policies. many areas obama policies are being continued. immigration is stuck in the courts. deportation -- >> he can do it unilaterally and what does it cost him? >> that's true. one have still hoped that the fact that his secretary of state who was the former ceo of exxon was in favor of the paris accord. the fact that the national economic director -- >> none of those are in his base. >> his daughter. >> they are not in his base. >> in a sense, you're right in terms of the politics of this. trump has decided -- frankly a little odd to me that he is simply not really going to try to pivot to the center. >> not at all. >> the obvious strategy would have been you get elected and you now say, okay, i have my
base and i'll pivot to the center. big infrastructure bill would have put democrats in a bind. they would have had to agree with it. we'll see what the approval ratings look like. >> fareed, thank you very much. always great to get your perspective. you can watch fareed only on cnn. we're seeing it play out in real time. the divide in america. this decision to pull out of the accord plays to it. bill weir went back to places where he grew up and he knows and talked about what's keeping us apart and what may bring us together. a perfectly time special by a perfect storyteller. geico can help with way more than car insurance. boats, homes, motorcycles... even umbrella coverage. this guy's gonna wish he brought his umbrella. fire at will! how'd you know the guy's name is will? yeah?
safety isn't a list of boxes to check. it's taking the best technologies out there and adapting them to work for you. the ultrasound that can see inside patients, can also detect early signs of corrosion at our refineries. high-tech military cameras that see through walls, can inspect our pipelines to prevent leaks. remote-controlled aircraft, can help us identify potential problems
and stop them in their tracks. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. >> there's a big political divide in the country but bill weir has a gift for looking deeper into why things exist and what we can do about it. he traveled across the country for a special called "states of change." take a look at this. >> i thought he was a fool ten years ago, and i still think he's a fool, but his policies i tend to agree with. >> did you vote for him? >> i did. >> i voted for trump. i was proud about it. i didn't want a puppet. i didn't want hillary in the same old everything. i wanted someone to come in and rattle the cage. >> mary is a former classmate
and now an accountant and understands the economy of a place where retirees and their social security checks make up half of the wealth, tourism and agriculture. the rest -- >> people weren't spending money. they weren't getting loans at banks. that stopped everything. all of the building came to a halt almost. now it's coming back. >> bill weir joins us now. you know the place very well. social security and assistance payments half of the economy. >> a lot of folks on food stamps there as well. this is a county and when i grew up it went for reagan and bill clinton. it went for obama the first time and then romney. wisconsin was very centrist state. trump won in a two to one landslide. all of these folks i grew up knowing, they do live in a different america. they see his words. they hear them in a very different way than my neighbors in manhattan or los angeles did. i really wanted to dig into why that was. i went back to inner city of milwaukee where i also grew up.
went down to the evangelical community in oklahoma. my mom was a big born again christi christian. she's the reason we moved all over the country. i wanted to come at each other with a sense of empathy and an open mind. regardless of what side of the divide you're on, it's like marriage counseling. you're never going to get anywhere if you start with you're an idiot. let me tell you why. and when you get into these communities and see it through their eyes, it makes a lot more sense. >> did you hear what that woman said? did you hear that a lot which is i just wanted to shake it up. >> absolutely. i had a buddy of mine who said, no, i was ready for the blank show. you think he can't be president. hold my beer. watch this. so there was a little bit of that. there was people who said they didn't believe a woman's place is the white house. i heard that again and again from both sides actually. it was really fascinating. in the end if you watch the full film online, we have a long
documentary on cnn.com and saturday night we have this special, i think you'll see each other. americans. we, the people, in a new way. that's really what i was going for. >> that's part of the beauty of your gift is finding what you see as connective tissue between the two sides to build on. >> thanks for sharing some of it with us. >> bill's cnn special "states of change." tomorrow 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on cnn. remember, you can go online and see even more. >> cnn newsroom after this quick break. have a great weekend.
y282uy ywty > we begin with breaking news. the jobs report out moments ago. headlines here. mixed results. when it comes to jobs added to the economy, the number is lower than expected. >> there is good news. the unemployment rate at the lowest level since may 2001. want to get right to cnn's chief business correspondent christine romans. glaring numbers both ways. >> let's look first at the unemployment rate. this is a level that most consider to be to be full employment. this is when you have a hard time finding workers. 4.3% the lowest since 2001. a time by the way we thought the economy was roaring on all fronts. but job growth this time this year seems to be