MICHAEL SAVAGE NEWSLETTER: Savage talks to EPA chief about Paris Accord

scott-pruittWelcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily report on all things “Savage.”

In today’s issue: Savage interviewed EPA administrator Scott Pruitt shortly after President Trump’s announcement Thursday that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord.

Michael Savage: Congratulations on the president’s announcement. It’s a big day for America, is it not?

Scott Pruitt: Michael, it’s a day that the president has put America first. He’s committed to doing that across the board in many areas, and today he did that with respect to international agreements on the environment. It’s a good, good day for our domestic energy production and for American citizens across the country.

Savage: I totally agree, and I’m referring to one piece of science, which is the Vostok ice core samples, which I’ve written about in a previous book of mine, which showed definitively that when the scientists from five nations dug down five miles into the ice in the Antarctic, they saw that there was climate change long before mankind had industrialized. And try to get this information across to people, you can’t do it; it’s almost impossible.

Pruitt: You know, it’s interesting Michael, what Paris really represented was a strategy where the rest of the world applauded while we constrained ourselves economically.

There’s a reason why the European leaders want us in the Paris Accord. It’s because it constrains our economy and puts us at a disadvantage. And, look, we are already leading the world with respect to our CO2 footprint reduction, largely because of American innovation and technology. As you know, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, allows us to convert natural gas and the generation of electricity, and we’re at pre-1994 levels right now with respect to our CO2 footprint.

In fact, from 2000 to 2014, an 18-plus percent reduction in our carbon emission. So, for the rest of the world to say we should be apologetic about how we balance the environment and growing jobs, it’s just a falsity.

They want us to [do this] because it hurts us, and the president has made a very important decision for this country to say we’re going to put America first.

Savage: Well, I totally agree with it, based on the science. Of course, we all want a cleaner earth, and what you just said indicates we’re still going to be working towards that goal. Isn’t that correct?

Pruitt: Yeah, what’s interesting, Michael, is that the 18 percent reduction, in CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2014, and pre-1994 levels in our CO2 footprint overall, that was accomplished through American innovation and technology, not through government mandate, largely. And, so, that’s what wrong-headed about Washington, D.C., at times. Washington, D.C., wants to pass regulations that put America at a disadvantage.

The Clean Power Plan was an extension, but President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, his Climate Action Agenda, was an extension of Paris. That rule alone was a $292 billion hit for compliance, on this country.

So, the president made a courageous decision today. He exercised fortitude. He said no to the pressures of international leaders. As he said, I got elected by the citizens of Pittsburgh, not the citizens of Paris. Tremendous message to the people of this country, that he’s going to put their interests first as opposed to some European capital.

Savage: But the president said something interesting that I predicted he would say. Although he’s withdrawn from the Paris Accord, he is open to seeking a better deal. I suspected he would try to do that, and that, of course, is the interesting part here. Yes, he’s withdrawing from the Paris climate pact, because it favors other nations at the expense of the American workers, but he said he’s going to renegotiate or negotiate and see if we can make a deal. That’s great, but that’s what I wanted to hear. In other words, why should we always be at a disadvantage, is what I’m saying. Correct?

Pruitt: Correct. That’s right. Look, this doesn’t mean disengagement. What this means is that we’re going to export to the rest of the world, which we’re already doing. We ought to be exporting our technology, hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, clean coal technology, ultra-critical coal generation. We need to export that to the nations across the globe.

The president said something very important. We’ve talked about this. You know, fuel diversity, as it relates to our power grid, is something so essential. As you know, Michael, solid hydrocarbons, coal, can be stored on-site at a utility. So, if you have a disruption, because of an attack on the transportation network or you have peak demand, as he said, 3 or 4 percent growth, if we have that kind of growth, you need all forms of energy: coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, across the board, to make sure that our power grid is sufficient to meet our growing economy and our manufacturing base.

The rest of the world is going the other direction. And that’s going to give us an economic advantage.

Savage: Mr. Pruitt, here’s the question that’s plaguing me. The earliest that the U.S. can formally remove itself from the Paris Accord is Nov. 4, 2020. When does the accord actually kick in?

Pruitt: We are able, and the president said today, that the targets that were an extension of Paris, that the commitment, the contributions to the Green Climate Fund, cease now. We’re not going to take steps to comply with those percentages. And that was very important.

Legally, China and India and those countries, they don’t face what we do domestically. They don’t have groups that will potentially sue the U.S. government, the EPA, to say, you have to go regulate to meet your 26 to 28 percent reduction. To say we’re not going to abide by those percentages sends a very clear message that we have latitude to do what’s right for the American people and not be constrained with litigation or through these commitments to the Paris Accord.

Savage: Mr. Pruitt, the statement that the president made that really brought it home for me was when he said China (and India) will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants while we cannot build any new coal plants. … What kind of warped agreement is that?

Pruitt: Yes, and do you know what, Michael, it also said in the same agreement that India would take no steps of reducing their CO2 emissions and they receive $2.5 trillion in aid. Think about that. So, China doesn’t take any steps until 2030. India doesn’t take any steps until they get $2.5 trillion. And what did they say to America? America, you go take steps now. You reduce your carbon footprint now. And that’s what the clean power plant rule represented. That’s what the methane rule represented. All that climate action agenda of the past administration, it impacted our economy. Up to $2.5 trillion is gross domestic product, while the rest of the world did little to nothing. I mean that is just a bad business deal.

And so why would the previous administration go to Paris, be apologetic for what this country has done to reduce its CO2 footprint and then cut a deal that impacts our economy and contracts jobs?

It’s because the past administration had a war on coal. The past administration had a war on fossil fuels. This president recognized it’s not the government’s responsibility.

In fact, it’s an abuse of authority to pick winners and losers in the energy context. We need individuals generating electricity through coal, natural gas, hydro, nuclear, wind power, across the board, and as they do it, do it with a sensitivity to the environment. We can do both growth and protect the environment.

Savage: Much of the science is based upon fake science. You’ve heard about fake news. I have studied the science, or I wouldn’t be talking like this. The Democrats don’t even know what they’re talking about. If you ask Sheldon Whitehouse, who just attacked Trump for saying he’s betraying the county in the service of the Koch brothers, I would say to Sheldon Whitehouse, can you sit down with a pen and show me what carbon looks like as a molecule? Please show it to me, and please explain how come ancient core samples from the Antarctic show there was climate change going on hundreds of thousands of years before man industrialized. He would not have an answer for us, Mr. Pruitt. The science is fake science that they’ve been foisting upon a gullible public. 

Pruitt: You know what’s interesting, Michael, there was a great article in the Wall Street Journal, to your point, by Steven Coonan, a scientist at NYU, called “Red team, blue team.” I don’t know if you saw it or not.  But he proposed that we should have a red team-blue team approach to CO2. We should have red team scientists and blue team scientists in an open setting, debate, discuss and have an open discussion about what do we know, what don’t we know, and the American people deserve truth,

Savage: Amen to that, because we’ve had no debate whatsoever. All Obama told us was 98 percent of agree. So what? There was a time when 100 percent of scientists said that the earth is flat. Did that make them right?

Pruitt: No, look, the reason there is not consensus through policy in Washington, D.C., is because, truly, the American people don’t trust what has happened in the last several years with respect to regulatory policy and this issue. And the president is taking a very significant step today. To say that we’re not going to continue the process of being hindered by international agreements. We’re going to put America’s interest first. We’re going to have an open discussion about this. We’re going to open to engagement. We’re going to show people what we’ve done in this country to reduce our CO2 footprint. We’re going to export innovation in technology to the rest of the world, just so they can learn from us. That we have nothing to be apologetic about in striking the balance between protecting our environment and growing our jobs. We do it better than anybody in the world, and we must stand strong, and, I think, proud in that regard. The president did a great job today.

Sign Savage’s petition urging President Trump and the U.S. State Department to demand that Britain remove him from its travel ban.

Get “Trump’s War” now!

Catch up on previous issues of The Michael Savage Newsletter.

Read the latest at MichaelSavage.com

  • guest

    We do NOT NEED to reduce CO2 emissions !!!!!!!\
    CO2 is what is used to MAKE OXYGEN by green plants!!
    The real climatic/environmental CRIME going on right now is the continuing massacre of the world’s forests !!—-especially the tropical rain-forests !—-Apart from all their other benefits they provide—they are the engines that create OXYGEN !!!
    But idiot Gore, rather than urging a defence of the forests,wants to STARVE them of the raw material for making oxygen !!—–CO2 !
    Every one of these trendy “environmentalists” needs to read page one of any botany textbook: “PHOTOSYNTHESIS” !
    But the word is too long for them.
    They can only cope with putting on their little black masks and smashing stuff at Berkeley !

    • Tom Ford

      Very well said!!!

  • Bruce Ruttan

    In this arena there are few equals to the Doc. I personally would have preferred that Trump had simply made clear that the pseudo science of Global Warming is entirely without any standing. However I know this is the best route for him now.

  • D C-Newt

    We truly enjoyed the show last night and thank you, Dr. Savage. Appreciate having the transcript in today’s newsletter, as a refresher, as well. I am so proud of our President and I love thinking of all of the exploding heads of the left in our country and in our world. We, as a nation, can put ourselves 1st and still accomplish many great things through our talented and underused resources, human, natural and innovative. God be with you.

  • Bob Bryant

    I have just made this 8 minute video explaining where the carbon dioxide rise in the latter half of the 20th century came from and it wasn’t from man burning fossil fuels and the increase in CO2 is good. The Paris Climate Accord is not about science. It is about a Socialistic redistribution of America’s wealth to the rest of the world.
    https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=AUzoVm4w-pw

    • Highland26

      Yes, it’s about reditrubition of wealth, namely OUR wealth! Glad Trump is looking out for the us!

  • 3rdRxSteward

    I am a geologist. I have been mapping sedimentary rocks and reconstructing paleo-depositional environments in the search of oil and natural gas. What I have observed is that climate changes, sometimes very quickly and very drastically on a basin-wide as well as global scale. We see faunal assemblages in the fossil record globally change at the blink of an eye. The same is true of sea level changes on a global level. The point I am making is that “climate” is dynamic and under a continuous state of change whether man walks the planet or not. I propose that the effect man has had on global warming is positive. I believe man is forestalling the next ice age. Would the Paris accord object to this anthropogenic outcome?

  • American Blues

    This interview is so important, Dr. Savage! That he choose you to do it with is just as magnificent as it can get! I feel like it also gave me ammunition to use against Climate illiterate Liberals (trolls). Thank you so much for sharing it with your readers as I wasn’t able to catch your show yesterday.

  • Highland26

    Paris accord was just another way the globalists planned to use political correctness to subjugate the USA and turn it into a third world country.

  • King of the Deplorables

    We all know its a hoax. The jig is up globalist scum!

  • Phineas Worthington

    Science will never, can never justify fascistic control of the economy, period. We are a nation founded upon the premise of liberty. I’m so thankful that we have a president brave and tough enough to take the hits and do what is right for our country by pulling out of the Paris accord.

  • David Ryan

    I just read an article that tries to explain the increase in the Antarctic ice pack without having to back down from the anthropogenic climate change narrative, The article’s author admits their climate models didn’t predict the increase and say that the science surrounding how the sea ice is affected by ocean currents and blah, blah is not clearly understood. Stop right there, the admission that climate models were wrong and climate science is not clearly understood is all you need to know. It is not clearly understood. That is a fact that is more incontrovertible than anything in this debate about climate change. It is not clearly understood. Yet the carbon emission model is supposed to be incontrovertible. During the late 17th and early 18th centuries there was a cooling period known as the Little Ice Age. The Thames river froze over every year. Londoners had parties on the ice. Look up the Maunder Minimum. The sun has more influence on climate than the current models accept. Sun spots and Milankovitch cycles. Try to ask any climate change fanatic about those topics and you’ll get blank stares and stuttering.

  • snowpumacat

    Thank you wholeheartedly, Dr. Savage, for your sobering bullet points countering this rampant lunacy of global warming. Einstein said that science was the extension of everyday common sense. And the world in 2017 is certainly in short supply of both common sense & a common understanding of what science really tells us. Thank you again, sir.

  • Anonymous

    Dear Dr. Savage…yes, your analysis makes sense. Its amusing that during the great depression of the 1930’s when industry was in a giant slump, the climate for several years was much hotter than it has been since then. Probably why more people didn’t freeze to death sleeping in doorways…just as an aside….you could have fun on air tomorrow revealing that President Trump’s tweet where he said Covfefe and Hillary Clinton and her network CNN, etc. etc. made fun of him…guess what….you may know already…that’s Arabic and it means I stand…He stands against the MSM! They are too stupid to realize he is way ahead of them…silly rabbits…it’s not English! He’s getting the last laugh again!

  • the ruthless terrier

    indeed Friday was another awesome show. and it was another great day for the deplorables although many may not yet realize it. we are making the tough choices today in order to have the better lives tomorrow.

  • Bruce Ruttan

    As for those who push the Global Warming thesis, they line up in twos. The first line is the multitude of true believers who ape an understanding of the issue. The second is the few who are manipulating the lower mass for personal gain. Not much else here as any one who keeps up on the info literature is aware that the thesis is bogus.

  • James Manuse

    Dr. Savage again mentions the Vostok Ice Core Study which was an experiment completed in the late 1990s.

    Newer research, completed in 2013, uses more accurate isotope studies to show that the lag period may be much, much shorter( if at all perhaps!) This may explain CO2 rise after temp increase. I hope Dr savage (or others) would address it.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

  • Elvis

    There are so many lies and propaganda from both M. Savage and the EPA’s
    chief. The first big lie is that USA isn’t the biggest polluter in the world
    (and if it’s true that USA is the cleanest nation on earth than it would have
    only won from the Paris Agreement, since you could sell your Emissions
    Trading). Talking about Environmental International Law and Agreements,
    everybody knows that USA has been against Environmental Agreements (apart in
    the last 8 years), because on this topic it has always been controlled by the
    big carbon industries – and that’s a pity. I think it’s really bad for the USA
    economy and its Research and Innovation that is pulling back from this
    agreement, and very soon you’ll get the first negative impacts of your choice,
    as UK is already hardly regretting for its blind choice.
    The future of the environment is really important and you should fight for a
    better and cleaner ambient, because it affects your health and your quality of
    life. It’s not about climate change, it’s about your personal health, it’s
    about the neighbourhood you live in, the water you drink, the air you breath,
    and the soil that you walk on.
    It’s really a shame the M. Savage is behaving so stupidly (I have to use this
    word – on the climate change and environmental topic he behaves as a total
    ignorant), because once I used to listen to him and I even started to believe
    his unscientific propaganda on the “hoax” of climate change. Then I
    started to understand that M. Savage behaves like this only for his ego and
    because he wants to reach higher and higher grounds – and there is nothing
    wrong with that – but when you start to be a liar to reach your goal you can’t
    be justified anymore.
    And I want to point out another EPA’s chief short-sighted behaviour: accusing
    the EU nations that they want to trick the USA – this is just another occasion
    that shows that USA has lost its intelligent and collaborative Leaders, because
    if you lose Europe as your allies, you lose the United States of America too
    … be sure of that.
    It’s a pity that with the “revolution” that you achieved by electing
    Trump, you actually are going backwards, in the economic sense, scientifical
    sense, international power and a lot of other matters. Unfortunately, Trump is
    destroying your movement.

    • Randy G.

      No Elvis you are the stupid one. What did you not read in that paris b.s. Other nations use coal and we do not but we pay for it. Plus the whole thing is bogus. The Earth has been cooling down for more than a decade and as Savage said morons like you will never except the facts as truths. So shut up.

      • Elvis

        Hey Randy. First thing, it seems to me that you’re kind of jealous about
        my name. Second, I won’t waste my time offending somebody I don’t know.

        So, as I wrote before it is NOT about climate change, and I’m not
        just talking about the Paris Agreement, but I’m saying that in general
        the state of climate change doesn’t matter so much (and for sure me, you
        and M. Savage can’t tell the whole story – only a hardworking scientist
        can explain this complex reality – and you always have the possibility
        to read SCIENTIFIC PAPERS about any topic you want). What it really
        matters is biodiversity (did you know that we may loose 40% of
        biodiversity by 2050?), the ecosystem (living thing and material
        elements of the world like water, soil, climate, etc.), because on that
        depends your
        personal health and personal health of your children.
        Another
        point is that, for example the EU has set really high objectives about
        changing it’s energy to renewable sources and they want to reach the 20%
        target of renewable energy by 2020, and 80% by 2050. This means that
        the technology has to change, new professions will be available, and a
        new way of living has to be promoted: one that is respectful of the
        environment.
        So coal is a dinosaur destined to be replaced
        everywhere in the world: EU, Asia and USA too, and if you grant more
        money and funds to an obsolete technology you are going to loose a lot
        in the long run: good luck with that!

  • Elvis

    Hey Randy. First thing, it seems to me that you’re kind of jealous about my name. Second, I won’t waste my time offending somebody I don’t know.
    So, as I wrote before it is NOT about climate change, and I’m not just talking about the Paris Agreement, but I’m saying that in general the state of climate change doesn’t matter so much (and for sure me, you and M. Savage can’t tell the whole story – only a hardworking scientist can explain this complex reality – and you always have the possibility to read SCIENTIFIC PAPERS about any topic you want). What it really matters is biodiversity (did you know that we may loose 40% of biodiversity by 2050?), the ecosystem (living thing and material elements of the world like water, soil, climate, etc.), because on that depends your
    personal health and personal health of your children.
    Another point is that, for example the EU has set really high objectives about changing it’s energy to renewable sources and they want to reach the 20% target of renewable energy by 2020, and 80% by 2050. This means that the technology has to change, new professions will be available, and a new way of living has to be promoted: one that is respectful of the environment.
    So coal is a dinosaur destined to be replaced everywhere in the world: EU, Asia and USA too, and if you grant more money and funds to an obsolete technology you are going to loose a lot in the long run: good luck with that!

    PS: please don’t try this dialectic with anybody by trying to offend people.
    PPS: please be really careful how many times you use the word TRUTH (I know that here you used only once, but probably in your daily life you use it too many time), because it’s a word with too much internal power and it can have really big constructive or devastating effects on people’s psychology