Pruitt defends decision to withdraw from Paris climate deal; Al Gore weighs in

close

Video

Pruitt defends decision to withdraw from Paris climate deal

Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency talks jobs, climate and President Trump's agenda on 'Fox News Sunday'

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," June 4, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I’m Chris Wallace.

Another deadly attack in London. Britain’s prime minister condemns an evil ideology.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: We’ll get the latest in live reports from London and we’ll discuss what it means for the U.S. with Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Then, President Trump pulls the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord and starts a global debate.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.

WALLACE: We’ll discuss the impact on the environment, the U.S. economy and America's place in the world with Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

And critics attack President Trump for leaving the climate deal, pointing to long-lasting consequences.

EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT: Make our planet great again.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALI., MINORITY LEADER: How was he ever going to explain to his grandchildren what he did to the air they breathe?

WALLACE: We’ll talk with one of the world's leading advocate on climate change, former Vice President Al Gore, who calls the president's withdrawal reckless and indefensible.

Pruitt and Al Gore, live, only on "Fox News Sunday."

Plus, former FBI Director James Comey testifies before Congress this week about his conversations with Mr. Trump. We’ll ask our Sunday panel about what promises to be a moment of high drama.

All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

We begin with breaking news out of London, at least seven are dead and dozens injured after another terror attack targeted Britain's capital. This comes less than two weeks after a suicide bomber hit a pop concert in Manchester, England.

In a few minutes, we’ll talk with Senator Roy Blunt, member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But we begin with Fox team coverage, Catherine Herridge on what the intelligence community is saying. But, first, senior foreign affairs correspondent Greg Palkot live from our London bureau -- Greg.

GREG PALKOT, FOX NEWS SENIOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, for the third time in three months, terror hits the U.K. and once again, it is ugly. It was on a busy Saturday night in London as the attackers spread across London Bridge in a rented van, driving up on the walkway, smashing into pedestrians. They then ditched that vehicle a few blocks away, and armed with long knives stabbed their way through bars and restaurants nearby, with some putting up a fight.

All told, at least seven people were killed, 48 injured, many critically, including an off-duty police officer. Along with British citizens from France, Australia and elsewhere were targeted. No word yet on whether any Americans were involved.

Now, police caught up with the attackers just eight minutes later, shooting that all three, at least one had a beard, camouflage pants and a fake suicide vest. When one attack he reportedly screamed out: Praise to Allah -- the Arabic word for God.

Here is what U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May had to say today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: As a country, our response must be what it has always been, when we have been confronted by violence. We must come together, we must pull together and united we will take on and defeat our enemies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PALKOT: Police now say they have arrested 12 people following raids in eastern London, said to be the home of one of the attackers. It is a sign that authorities might be on the trail of the terrorist. Police also doing a thorough forensic search of the entire terrorist site, but what is next?

Prime Minister Theresa May also said today terror breeds terror -- Chris.

WALLACE: Greg Palkot, reporting from London -- Greg, thanks for that.

Now, let's bring in chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge with the latest on who was behind the attack -- Catherine.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE, FOX NEWS CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Chris, no group is claiming responsibility this morning. But within minutes of the attack, a senior ISIS affiliated social media account pushed out slick propaganda on using vehicles as weapons, threatening more violence. It's not clear whether the ISIS posts were opportunistic or the terror group played a role. This morning, U.S. and U.K. intelligence are focused on the suspects and whether they acted alone or had a terror network behind them.

British security sources reporting that very early indications suggest the attack may have been pulled together at short notice. With the rising homegrown threat, British police are trained to quickly neutralize suspects as they did last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CRESSIDA DICK, LONDON METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER: That vehicle continued to drive from London Bridge to the borough market. The suspects then left the vehicle and a number of people were stabbed. The suspects were shot dead by armed officers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HERRIDGE: Homeland Security is saying that at this time they have no information to indicate if specific credible threat to the United States. Secretary Kelly told Fox last night he worries we are, quote, right around the corner from having a similar attack but for the efforts of DHS and law enforcement agencies.

President Trump was briefed last night and spoke with the British prime minister, expressing his condolences and praising the heroic response of London police and first responders.

The president also seeming to make a political point that the attack bolstered his travel ban: We need to be smart, vigilant and tough, he tweeted. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the travel ban extra level of security -- safety.

Questions are being raised this morning about a possible intelligence failure after the British government recently lower the threat level, Chris.

WALLACE: Catherine, thank you.

HERRIDGE: You’re welcome.

WALLACE: Joining me now, Roy Blunt, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Senator, welcome back.

SEN. ROY BLUNT, R-MISSOURI: Good to be with you.

WALLACE: What can you add to what we just heard from Catherine Herridge?

BLUNT: Well, you know, I think what we are seeing is such a broad band of potential attacks. We hear from our own intelligence community and have for years, more threats for more directions than ever before. You see the terrible Manchester bombing, those young people, mostly young women, young girls, with a fairly sophisticated bomb, based on published reports on that.

These guys have a van and kitchen knives. We think other groups are looking at more advanced kinds of attacks. So, clearly, this is from all directions, is tends to take credit for the things that you can steal a truck, get your van, drive in a car, terrorized people with very little planning or backup. Other groups we believe are looking at other things and we are constantly have to be vigilant, I think Secretary Kelly is right when he says that only because we have been fortunate and worked hard to prevent this have we not had these kinds of attacks here.

WALLACE: I want to play a clip from British Prime Minister May today. Here it is.

(BGEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAY: While the recent attacks are not connected by common networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Any explanation as to why we have seen three fatal terror attacks in Britain in less than three months?

BLUNT: I don't know if there's any real explanation for that, but in Paris and London and Western Europe, generally, it got people who came there to do jobs that were allowed to stay in enclaves, never became part of the society. You see the second generation of those families often turning to what the prime minister mentioned, you know, we need to say, we need to talk about it, our friends who are Muslim need to admit that this extreme sense of Islam that results in these attacks has to be called for what it is and we have to try to do what we can to intervene.

WALLACE: Do we have -- I’ve heard the argument that because we are beginning to roll back ISIS in the so-called caliphate in Iraq and Syria, that there is an increased emphasis on these attacks, these kind of low technology attacks in the West. Do you think our success in one place is creating more of a threat?

BLUNT: I think you can. You know, somebody made the observation that long ago that sometimes countries implode. Syria seems to have exploded. That as things change in Syria, people have access to Europe in ways that you would otherwise want to try and do something about.

There's no way to do background checks on people that come in from communities that no longer exist, jobs that were jobs months or years ago. And so, I think we do see that. And, you know, like so many of the things that happened in Northern Africa, what people initially thought would be the result would turn out to be just the opposite.

WALLACE: As a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, any indication of an increased terror threat here in the U.S.?

BLUNT: I think the terror threat is real. You know, one of the things -- when we've seen things like San Bernardino, more often than not, U.S. officials, the FBI and others talk to these people, after months of surveillance decided they no longer needed to be under the level of watch they were and then suddenly these kinds of things happen.

I do think, again, that you've got some groups that are looking at a big play like taking down an airliner. You've got others who need very little support, very little planning, and can do incredible damage, which is actually in many ways almost more of terrorism because you go anywhere, do anything, you wonder what could happen at any moment. It could happen here --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: -- in London Bridge on a Saturday night.

BLUNT: London Bridge, the Westminster Bridge, the concert.

WALLACE: The concert, yes.

BLUNT: All of these things are true terror targets. They’re not -- it's not like going after the U.S. embassy.

WALLACE: Right.

BLUNT: They are true terror targets.

WALLACE: As Catherine mentioned just after the news broke about this terror attack, President Trump tweeted another call for his travel ban. That case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you think the justices should pay attention to the kind of thing that is happening in England and other parts of the world as they make that decision?

I mean, the fact is, in Britain, most of these terrorists have been homegrown. They've been U.K. citizens.

BLUNT: They have been. And, you know, looking at where people like that who come to our country have been is important. I’m not nearly as concerned as a lot of people are about the visa waiver program, because the visa waiver program just triggers that you can spend more time on people who you have reason to believe may have been in Libya, may have been in Syria, may have become radicalized.

I don’t know what the court will decide. I’m not a lawyer. I think my view is the president does have certainly the right to put in place extreme vetting. And, Christ, it’s been four -- it's been four months since I said they needed four months to put that in place. I think you can do that without a travel ban and hopefully we are.

WALLACE: I want to talk to you about another hat as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. A lot of anticipation about the testimony this week from FBI -- former FBI Director James Comey, what you expect to hear from him? What questions do you have for him?

BLUNT: Well, I think it's important that we talk to everybody who should be talk to about this. I do believe that the Senate Intelligence Committee is the most likely place to bring this investigation to conclusion with whatever the conclusion turns out to be. You know, we used to dealing with each other on issues like this, so we are used to classify documents, we’re used to coming together to protect the country. Hopefully, that's what we will be able to do --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: What are you looking to ask (ph) from Comey?

BLUNT: We -- what Comey says and how he says that I think will be important. I haven't frankly understood much of what Comey has done since about a year ago. And his decisions have been, I think, highly questionable. We’ll see what -- why he was prepared for that meeting the way he was, said he had a round of murder board kind of questions before he went to see the president, why he thought it was important to immediately download that, and what other meetings he had that frankly he didn't think were so important to download what happen.

WALLACE: Finally, do you think that President Trump has a legitimate claim to executive privilege to block Comey from testifying? And as a practical matter, do you think he should invoke it?

BLUNT: I think the president is better served by getting all this information out. Sooner rather than later, let's find out what happened and bring this to a conclusion. You don't do that I think by invoking executive privilege on a conversation you had apparently with nobody else in the room. You know, most stories have two sides to them. At some point, we’ll hear the president’s side. But I frankly think we need to hear Mr. Comey's side and find out what other questions we need to ask after he answers the questions this week.

WALLACE: Senator Blunt, thank you. Thanks for your time this Sunday. And thank you for coming in on short notice.

BLUNT: Glad to be here.

WALLACE: Up next, President Trump's dramatic decision this week to pull out of the Paris climate accord. We’ll talk with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a key player in the president's deliberations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: A look outside the beltway at Pittsburgh. The president said he's looking out for residents of the former steel town in pulling out of the Paris climate deal.

International leaders, business executives and people around the world are still reacting to President Trump's decision this week. In a few minutes, we’ll talk with former Vice President Al Gore, a leading advocate on climate change.

Joining me now is Scott Pruitt, Mr. Trump's administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency and a key player in the president's decision.

Mr. Pruitt, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

SCOTT PRUITT, EPA ADMINISTRATOR: Good morning, Chris.

WALLACE: I want to start with a question that you were asked repeatedly on Friday. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARY BRUCE, ABC NEWS: Yes or no, does the president believe that the climate change is real and a threat to the United States?

PHILIP RUCKER, WASHINGTON POST: Does the president believe today that climate change is a hoax?

PRUITT: What's interesting about all the discussions we had through the last several weeks have been focused on one singular issue: is Paris good or not for this country?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Let me get this straight, you and the president spent weeks discussing whether he should pull out of the Paris climate deal and you never discussed climate change?

PRUITT: It was about the merits and demerits of the deal, Chris.

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: That’s what the focus.

Look, when you look at what this country has achieved since the late 1990s-2000 time frame, we've seen an 18 percent reduction in CO2 footprint from 2000 to 2014. We’re at pre-1994 levels.

You know, what's interesting about all this criticism from the left, environment left, is if you go back to the time when the Paris deal was cut, those same groups -- in fact, James Hansen, former national scientist, called it a fake and a fraud. The general counsel of the Sierra Club was critical of what was achieved in Paris because it didn't hold China, it did not hold India accountable, and the United States agreed to 26 percent to 28 percent reductions, in CHD (ph).

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: We’re going to get into all of that, but what I’m asking you is, as the president’s EPA administrator, as his point person on the environment, isn’t that a conversation that over the last few months that you have to have, whether or not climate change is real or a hoax, as the president suggested, and whether or not human activity contributes to it? Are you saying you've never had that conversation with him?

PRUITT: The focus of the last several weeks was centered --

WALLACE: I’m asking you over the last few months --

PRUITT: -- was centered on the merits and demerits of the Paris agreement. The president said -- said actually back during the campaign, that climate change occurs. I’ve said -- I’ve said during my confirmation process that climate change is occurring. That human activity contributes to it.

WALLACE: He also said it was a hoax.

PRUITT: Well, Chris, the point here, and to your question, this is something over the last several weeks, the president has received much information about the impact on jobs and also the impact on the environment. You know, we have nothing to be apologetic about as a country with respect to what we've done in reducing our CO2 footprint. It’s also --

WALLACE: I don’t want to be a --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: -- but you’re not going to tell me whether or not the president believes climate change is a hoax and whether or not human activity -- it's a simple question.

PRUITT: The president has indicated that the climate changes. It's always changing. I’ve indicated the same.

WALLACE: Well, that’s the same --

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: What's important, Chris, here -- what’s important is what the president did on Thursday is put America first and say to the United States and say to the world that we’re going to remain engaged, but we’re also going to make sure that as we remain engage, we put America’s interest first.

WALLACE: As you pointed out, the president justified pulling out of the Paris deal largely on economic terms. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But the study that the president cited was funded by two groups that are dramatically opposed to environmental regulation and the study itself acknowledges it does -- this is a quote from the study -- it does not take into account the potential benefits from avoided emissions. The study results are not a benefit-cost analysis of climate change.

PRUITT: Well, there were several --

WALLACE: Administrator, it is a worst-case scenario.

PRUITT: There were several studies that were actually published in response to Paris. NERA, the Heritage study, the Global Policy publication --

WALLACE: You specifically quoted NERA.

PRUITT: There were several and -- that were sourced aspects as part of the speech.

And what we know from the Paris agreement objectively is that it was a $2.5 trillion contraction to our economy over ten years. What we do know is it impacted up to 400,000 jobs in this country. What we do know is it impacted both the manufacturing base and energy sector jobs.

You know, since last -- the fourth quarter of 2016, Chris, we've had almost 50,000 jobs created in the mining and coal sector alone. In fact, in the month of May, almost 7,000 jobs.

So, these individuals that are -- I think what’s also being missed here is that when you look at how we generate electricity in this country, the power grid. We need to feel diversity. We need coal, natural gas, hydro, renewables, nuclear, as part of that mix, because it provides stability and strength to our grid and lower cost. Our price per kilowatt compared to Germany, our price per kilowatt compared to Europe is far better and it helps us grow jobs in this country.

WALLACE: Mr. Pruitt, aren’t you focusing on the wrong thing?

I want to put up some, I’m going to say, surprising statistics. Take a look at this -- the U.S. now employs more than double the number of people in the solar industry than it does in coal. Aren’t you and the president talking about protecting the horse and buggy business just as cars come online?

PRUITT: Absolutely not, because as I just indicated, we need hydro -- we need hydrocarbon stored on-site at utility companies across this country to address something, attacks on our grid, attacks on infrastructure, if we have peaked demand needs, you want a diversity of fuels that generate electricity. It is bad business -- it is bad business for a country to limit the --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: President Trump talks about protecting the people of Pittsburgh. The mayor of Pittsburgh said we’re not a steel town anymore, we’re a green town and, in fact, he rejected what the president said. And the mayor of Pittsburgh, the city he specifically cited, said, we’re going to comply with the Paris climate accord.

PRUITT: This president has said that we truly need an all-of-the-above approach. We should not penalize sectors of our economy, Chris. Government regulation shouldn't be used to pick winners and losers. The past administration declared a war on coal and there were several coal facilities across the country shut down because of their past efforts. That is not what government regulation should be about.

Government regulation should be about making things regular, not picking winners and losers, and making sure we have fuel diversity and generating electricity in this country. And as I indicated, the jobs numbers show already, already, that this president's deregulatory agenda, his leadership in the energy space is making a difference for jobs across this country, almost 50,000 in the coal sector --

WALLACE: I want to go to another issue, because the president also said that the Paris climate accord and pulling out of it isn't going to make all that much difference on the environment. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: With total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree -- think of that, this much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But the people behind the MIT study, that study that he just cited say that he took a number from 2014 before the targets for the Paris accord were even reached. And the cofounder of the program said this about the White House: They found a number that made the point they want to make. It’s kind of a debate trick.

The people behind the study the president cited say, look, Paris isn’t going to solve everything. It isn’t going to solve global warming, but it makes an important contribution.

PRUITT: What short memories these folks have. What short memories they have.

James Hansen, former NASA scientist, the father of climate change, he's been called, called Paris a fake and a fraud, because of the very things the president cited. Two-tenths of one -- there are other studies. The Global Policy publication came out criticizing --

WALLACE: Are you going to speak to what the MIT authors --

(CROSSTALK)

PRUITT: Look, it’s very fishy to me that MIT updated their study or their results after we started citing it. No one is questioning their methodology. Nobody’s questioning their findings.

WALLACE: Well, in fact, you didn’t cite their study after Paris. You cited their study before Paris, in 2014.

PRUITT: What's interesting, Chris, is during the time before Paris, before Paris, this country reduce their CO2 footprint by over 18 percent, from 2000 to 2014. What does that demonstrate? It demonstrates that American innovation, American technology is leading the way with respect to reducing the CO2 footprint, not government mandate.

If China and India want to reduce their CO2 footprint, they should learn from us.

WALLACE: Well --

PRUITT: India, by the way, in the Paris agreement, talk about the merits of the deal, Chris, conditioned any steps that they would take on receiving $2.5 trillion of aid. China agreed to make no steps until the year 2030. They’re the largest polluters in the world.

WALLACE: Let me -- let me pick up on that because you've taken me exactly where I want to go.

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Yes, this is working together.

The president had one more big complaint about Paris and he said that it treats the U.S. unfairly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can't build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: But here again, sir, the reality is different, is very different from what the president said. China has canceled plans for more than 100 coal plants and promises 20 percent of its energy consumption will be green by 2030. India has pledged 40 percent of its energy will be renewable by 2030. And it’s set to pass Japan this year as the world's third-largest market for solar power.

So, it may not mandate it in the Paris agreement, but, in fact, China and India are going green already.

PRUITT: You know, what’s interesting -- one of the keywords that was up on the screen was plans. China was actually building over 360 new coal generation facilities and had 800 planned, Chris. So, maybe they've drawn back on the number that are planned, but they’re burning coal. And they’re going to continue to burn coal.

WALLACE: Well, we are burning coal.

PRUITT: Just for foreseeable future.

We’ve got a contraction with respect to our grid, quite substantially. We used to be well above 40 percent. We’re now down around 30 percent, if not less.

So, this country has frontloaded its costs. The rest of the world said, hey, we’ll get to that later. They applauded when -- when we joined Paris, the rest of the world applauded, not because of climate reductions, but because it put this country at an economic disadvantage. We -- the Clean Power Plan alone, the Clean Power Plan alone represented almost $300 million of compliance cost to our economy.

So, why wouldn’t Paris -- excuse me, why wouldn’t France and these other countries want us to stay in that kind of deal? It's a bad deal for this country. The president didn't say, by the way, that we weren’t going to continue engagement. The president -- he said Paris represents a bad deal for this country.

WALLACE: He also said we’re going to renegotiate and all of the leaders around the world, certainly in Europe, said: forget it.

PRUITT: Well, then, he also said, either a new deal or as part of the Paris agreement.

But we’re already part -- look, we are the United States, Chris. We don't lose our seat at the table. We joined the treaty in 1992, called the UNFCCC, with respect to climate change.

WALLACE: All right.

PRUITT: And that is still there. We’re going to remain engaged internationally, but we’re going to make sure that as we make deals, that we put the interest of America first. This was applauded by small business.

You know, it was interesting. The New York Times yesterday had an article that a small business that applauded --

WALLACE: I don't want you to filibuster so we can't get to Al Gore. We want to get to him.

PRUITT: OK.

WALLACE: You brought up a lot of legitimate points I’m going to ask him about.

Mr. Pruitt, thank you for your time. Always good to talk with you.

PRUITT: Thank you.

WALLACE: And thank you for answering our questions.

PRUITT: Thanks, Chris.

WALLACE: That's what it's all about.

Up next, former Vice President Al Gore on Mr. Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris accord.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Coming up, former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify before Congress this week about his conversations with the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: I hope this hearing doesn't become a hitch on President Trump. There's a cloud over the presidency that needs to be removed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: We’ll ask our Sunday panel what to expect.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: Former Vice President Al Gore's breakthrough documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," brought the topic of climate change to the forefront. Not surprisingly, he is one of the sharpest critics of Mr. Trump's decision this week. We welcome him for what we believe is his first appearance on Fox News since the 2000 campaign.

Mr. Vice President, good to have you back.

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Great to be back, Chris. Thank you for inviting me.

WALLACE: Before we get to climate change, I want to ask you about this terrible attack in London. How do we stop these attacks on the west and is President Trump's travel been part of the answer?

GORE: Well, most of the attacks, both in England and here in the United States, have been by homegrown terrorists. And, of course, the courts will deal with the travel ban. They've already been struck down. We’ll see what the Supreme Court does.

This surge of terrorism, we -- we have to defeat it, but we have to defeat it not only with the force of arms, but with the force of our values. And I truly believe that giving people around the world a sense that the world’s got our act together and we’re going to move forward to a bright future is one of the important tasks at hand.

WALLACE: Let's turn to the subject at hand.

You met with President-elect Trump during the transition to discuss climate change and afterwards you said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GORE: I had a -- a lengthy and very productive session with the president-elect. It was a sincere search for areas of common ground.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: You also talked with Mr. Trump, we’re told, last month about staying in the Paris climate deal. Did you misjudge the president?

GORE: Well, I've kept my communications with him confidential. I think that's the right way to handle it. But none of it would surprise you. I did my best to persuade him it was in our country's best interest to stay in the Paris agreement. I -- I thought there was a chance that he would do that. I'm sorry that he made the other decision.

WALLACE: How do you explain it?

GORE: Well, you’d have to ask him for the explanation. It makes no sense to me. I think that it was a reckless decision, and indefensible decision. I think it undermines our nations standing in the world and isolates us and threatens to harm humanity's ability to solve this crisis in time.

But, make no mistake about it, the -- this country is going to continue to solve the climate crisis. Governors like Jerry Brown and Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, many others, mayors, Mike Bloomberg’s doing a great job rallying mayors around the country. We are going to continue reducing emissions. Atlanta just decided to go 100 percent renewable and there are many, many others.

WALLACE: Let’s talk -- and I -- you heard me challenge Scott Pruitt. I’m going to challenge you. Let's talk about some of the concerns that people have about Paris. President Trump talked about one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called "green climate fund," nice name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Under the Paris Accord, 37 developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion to developing countries. Why is that fair?

GORE: Well, you know, when the Marshall Plan was launched by the United States after World War II, it ended up benefiting us tremendously, as well as making the world a better place. We would have been -- we would be 11th on the list of nations per capita in -- in helping the country to meet this climate challenge. And, by the way, one of the opportunities for us is to export our products and create more jobs here. You showed some jobs in the solar industry earlier. Solar jobs are now growing 17 times faster than other jobs. It's the brightest spot. If we get out there in the economy, if we get out there and help lead the sustainability revolution, it benefits our economy.

WALLACE: But here's the thing -- problem I think a lot of people have. Countries like the U.S., which have been developing an industrial economy since the 19th century, the argument is that somehow we owe something to countries that didn't.

GORE: Well, it’s a global challenge in the world community as a whole has to -- has to face up to it. This administration has said there's no such thing as a global community. Actually, there is, because we, as a civilization, are putting 110 million tons of heat trapping global warming pollution up into the sky every day as if it's an open sewer.

And, you know, the climate crisis is real, Chris. I -- I’m -- I'm sure you know that. President Trump won't say whether he believes it's real or not. But -- but it is real. And you don't have to rely on the virtually unanimous opinion of the scientific community anymore. Mother nature is telling us every night on the TV news now is like a nature hike through the book of Revelation. People are noticing this, these downpours and historic floods. We’ve had 11 once in a thousand year downpours in the U.S. just in the last ten years. We’ve got these wildfires that become mega fires now. We’ve got a -- 70 percent of Florida’s in drought today. Missouri declared an emergency just a couple of days ago because another -- of another one of these. And they keep on coming.

WALLACE: But let me pick up on that because let's say that we agree and you know a lot of people don't, some people don't. Some people that watch Fox News don't.

GORE: Right. Of course.

WALLACE: Even if you believe in greenhouse gas and climate change, there’s some questions about how effective the Paris Accord is --

GORE: Yes.

WALLACE: In dealing with it. Here's what EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said on Friday about the effectiveness of the U.S. target, which is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by a quarter under 2005 levels. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRUITT: Paris, it set targets at 26 to 28 percent with the entire agenda of the previous administration, we still fell 40 percent short of those targets. It was a failed deal to begin with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: You would agree that even if all 195 nations, now 194, met their targets, it still wouldn't solve the problem.

GORE: That is correct. However, it sends a very powerful signal to business and industry and civil society, and countries around the world. And since the Paris agreement was reached, look at what has happened. You talked about China earlier. China has now reduced its emissions four years in a row. It's reduced its coal burning three years in a row. India is now in the midst of a massive shift from coal to solar. Unbelievably, India just announced two weeks ago that within 13 years, 100 percent of their automobiles are going to have to be electric vehicles. We’re seeing this in this country as well. I went to one of the most conservative Republican cities in America, Georgetown, Texas, in an oil state. They have just completed a transition to 100 percent renewable energy.

WALLACE: But -- but -- but that’s part of the argument, Mr. Vice President, and it's a philosophical argument, do you need government regulations or will the economy -- will the market work? And -- and we took the case of solar, which has now doubled, pretty astonishing.

GORE: Yes.

WALLACE: Well, actually, we got some stats here, so we’ll do it. Greenhouse gas emissions already declined 12 percent below 2005 levels.Between 2004-2015, investment in green, clean energy rose from $10 billion to $56 billion. And as we point out now, twice as many jobs in solar as in coal. Isn't the country, isn’t the world going green on its own? Does it need this government -- this international regulation?

GORE: The -- the answer is yes and yes. We’re in the midst of a sustainability revolution that has the magnitude of the industrial revolution, but the speed of the digital revolution. But, yes, we still need good policies because we have to move faster. We’re in a race against time here. We’re seeing very encouraging changes. But we have to change faster.

The late economist Rudi Dornbusch, I’m sure you knew him, he once said, things take longer to happen than you think they will and then they happen much faster than you thought they could. And the Paris agreement was a successful effort to send the signal, this train is leaving the station, everybody on board. The U.S. should be on board. States and cities and businesses and civil society leaders are on board. If we had the president onboard an end good policy, we could move even faster.

WALLACE: I fact-checked Mr. Pruitt. I’m going to fact-check you.

GORE: OK.

WALLACE: After your movie "An Inconvenient Truth" came out in 2006, you made the following comments as part of our publicity for the -- the movie. You said unless we took, quote, "drastic measures," the world would reach a "point of no return" within ten years and you called it a "true planetary emergency." We’re 11 years later.

GORE: Oh.

WALLACE: Weren’t you wrong?

GORE: Well, we have seen a decline in emissions for the first -- on -- on a global basis for the first time they've stabilized and started to decline. So some of the responses of the last ten years have helped.

But, unfortunately, and regrettably, a lot of serious damage has been done. Greenland, for example, is losing 1 cubic kilometer of ice every single day. I went down to Miami and saw fish from the ocean swimming in the streets on a sunny day. The same thing was true in Honolulu just two days ago, just from high tides because of the sea level rising. Now, we are going to suffer some of these consequences, but we can limit and avoid the most catastrophic consequences if we accelerate the pace of change that’s now beginning.

WALLACE: Mr. Vice President, we should point out, you have a sequel coming up called "An Inconvenient Sequel," in July, and I understand that you’re going to have to rewrite the ending because of the decision the president was made -- just made.

GORE: The -- the -- the directors, Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, are putting a -- a new segment at the very end of the movie and I think that’s appropriate.

WALLACE: Thank you. Thanks for joining us. Let's not wait another 17 years.

GORE: Deal.

WALLACE: OK.

Up next, we’ll bring in our Sunday group to discuss a moment of high drama this week when former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about what we can expect to learn from Comey. Just go to Facebook or Twitter @foxnewssunday and we may use your question on the air.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Is the White House going to invoke executive privilege to prevent James Comey from testifying before the Senate Intelligence Panel next week?

SEAN SPICER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The date for that hearing was just set. I have not spoken to counsel yet. I don't know what -- what that -- what they’re going to -- how they’re going to respond.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer not answering whether the White House will try to block the former FBI director from talking to Congress on Thursday.

And it’s time now for our Sunday group, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, columnist for The Hill, Juan Williams. Julie Pace, who covers the White House for The Associated Press, and Jason Riley from The Wall Street Journal.

Well, Julie, as we say, the White House refuses to say, it The New York Times is reporting over the weekend that the president is unlikely to invoke executive privilege to block Comey from testifying, one, because it would be a P.R. disaster and, two, because his legal case is kind of weak. Question, what are you hearing from your sources?

JULIE PACE, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Well, as recently as this morning, what I’ve heard is that the president is leaning toward not invoking executive privilege for Comey’s testimony, but this is still an open decision. This is something that is going to be discussed in the coming days. And as we all know, with this president, it's not a final decision until it really comes --

WALLACE: Why are they fooling around with this?

PACE: I -- well, I think there are a couple reasons. I think, one, it actually is a discussion because they are worried about what Comey could potentially say, but they also recognize that if you do invoke executive privilege, just the optics of that makes it look like you're hiding something, makes it look like whatever Comey might say is going to be problematic for the president.

They think they have a little bit of a wiggle room here. I think if they don't invoke executive privilege and Comey does say something that is damaging to the president, what you’re going to hear administration officials point out is that in previous testimony that Comey has -- has done on Capitol Hill, the FBI has had to correct it. There have been questions about things that he said. I think that’s the argument that they’re going to be starting to make.

But, again, leaning toward "no." Still an open discussion.

WALLACE: We asked you for questions for the panel and we got a bunch on just this issue. Here’s one we got on Twitter from hatedirtypolitics. "Why did he," Comey, "wait so long to come out and say he was threatened by POTUS? Why after he was fire? And is this revenge for being fired?"

Jason, I have to say, a lot of our viewers are asking, why didn't Comey either resign or blow the whistle as soon as he believed the president was somehow trying to impede his investigation?

JASON RILEY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: It’s an excellent question. Instead, he simply took some notes and share them with a few people. But if he really thought that Trump had engaged in obstruction of justice, I think he had a duty to come forward and report that to higher officials in the Justice Department and certainly go public with it. He didn't do that, which suggest to me that he didn't think what Trump did really amounted to obstruction of justice, right?

BRITT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Remember, this, Chris, about obstruction of justice. There has to be -- it has to be an impeding investigation in a corrupt way, which is to say for political reasons or some other illegitimate reason, to ask and FBI director is -- what we know of the meeting, that if it’s -- you know, if he can’t see -- if he could see his way clear to letting the investigation go, since this is about Mike Flynn—

WALLACE: On Mike Flynn.

HUME: Flynn had just been fired. My guess is, if Comey looked at that and took -- took the view that it was -- he was being asked if he could do it, if he could -- in his view was he couldn't see his way clear to do that. He didn't do it. And then you later had testimony from him and also from his deputy that said there’d been no real effort -- no effort to impede the investigation. So I suspected, as Jason says, Comey did not think he was -- there was obstruction of justice involved here or he would have said so. And this is a guy that’s proved more than once that he’s always ready to threaten to quit. He does that all the time. And, by the way, you’re -- you’re -- the viewers’ question said, did he threaten Comey? He didn’t threaten Comey that we know of.

WALLACE: Juan.

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think if Comey had come forward and done that at that moment it would have been grandstanding and it would have imped the ongoing investigation. So I don’t think -- even if he saw it as constituting obstruction of justice, it wouldn’t have been appropriate. What was appropriate as to make it part of the investigation and see where it went from there.

I -- I think, though, you know, at this point, there’s so much fear in the White House of what is coming. They have now formed their own group to try to get ahead of this curve. But this remains a dark cloud over the president.

WALLACE: You know, Britt, there’s -- there’s a -- the legal issue as to whether it’s obstruction of justice. There’s also the political issue. You and I have covered a lot of these big hearings for all of Washington. And a lot of the country stops to wait to see the -- the key witness raise his hand and take the oath. How potentially politically damaging, maybe not legally -- not a case -- a case for prosecution -- but how politically damaging could this potentially be?

HUME: It could be damaging if -- but I -- I don't think Juan's explanation holds up very well and I don't think Comey’s in any position to come in and say, yes, he tried to obstructed justice and I kept quiet about it. I don’t -- that won’t work, in my view.

And the other factor we have to keep in mind --

WALLACE: No, but if he just says what he supposedly wrote in this memo, it’s damaging.

HUME: Yes, but it’s --

WALLACE: Not -- not -- I don’t mean it’s a legal case, but --

HUME: But that’s -- but that's already -- but that’s already out there, whatever damage has been done on that is -- it might be reinforced for a couple of days, but that doesn't really change the -- change the atmosphere or move the ball very much.

And remember this, Chris, he will be under the same strictures as he was when he was in office about discussions of an ongoing investigation. He really can't do that much, which -- which is why I think this hearing, like so many others before it, will probably not quite live up to its (INAUDIBLE), although the coverage is going to be unbelievable.

PACE: Well, I think we’re -- and one of the important things to keep in mind is that the amount of damage that this hearing creases is tied to how the president responds. The president is going to be watching the hearing like everybody else and we've seen that he has an inability to prevent himself from reacting. So if he is tweeting in real time, if he is giving interviews afterward where he’s weighing in --

WALLACE: Yes, Comey does that (INAUDIBLE).

PACE: You know, as a journalist, we always like to hear -- we always like to hear from the president.

WALLACE: You’d like that, wouldn’t you?

PACE: But -- but some of the damage will be within his control.

WALLACE: Jason.

RILEY: That's the damage. Sean Spicer, the White House press spokesman, came out and said, we want to talk about infrastructure this week. How much are we going to be talking about infrastructure with his hearing going on this week? That's the political damage. It keeps this in the news and instead of being focused on advancing an agenda on whether it's infrastructure or health care reform or tax reform, we’re talking about the drip, drip, drip from this investigation.

WILLIAMS: You know it wouldn’t -- this would -- Bob Mueller would not be a special counsel in this deal if we didn't have word of just this kind of interaction between Comey and the president and the pressure on Jeff Sessions.

HUME: I don't think we have any way of knowing if that's true.

WILLIAMS: I think that’s true.

HUME: Remember, Juan --

WILLIAMS: No.

HUME: This is primarily -- and has always been, and has always been described as a counterintelligence investigation --

WILLIAMS: Correct.

HUME: To get to the bottom of what the Russians tried to do to hack the election. And, of course, as a part of that, but just a part, was the question of whether there had been collusion between the --

WILLIAMS: Correct.

HUME: Between the Trump campaign and the Russians. So that’s a piece of it, but it’s not the main thrust of it, necessarily.

WILLIAMS: But it is and it has tremendous political damage --

HUME: It isn’t. It is not.

WILLIAMS: Tremendous collateral damage for the president. And the reason we’re discussing obstruction of justice and whether or not it would have been inappropriate for Jim Comey to come forward at that moment is because this investigation continues. In fact, it’s escalated, Britt.

HUME: I would agree with that entirely. It would tell -- which is another reason why I’ve said and will say again that this case has traveled farther on less evidence -- I'm talking about the collusion piece of it -- than any scandal I think I've ever seen.

WALLACE: All right --

WILLIAMS: So you know that, in fact, that what intelligence agencies have said, Russia definitely interfered in the election.

WALLACE: OK.

HUME: What's the underlying crime? What’s the crime?

WILLIAMS: The underlying crime potentially -- and that’s why I disagree with you, would be obstruction of justice by the president of the United States.

HUME: There’s been one crime identified and Mike Flynn was the victim of the -- of the leaking of his unmasked name.

WILLIAMS: That’s the -- you think that's the crime?

HUME: That’s the only crime that’s been so far identified.

WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. And Mike Flynn meeting with the Russian ambassador --

HUME: That’s --

WILLIAMS: To try to undercut the Obama sanctions, that doesn't bother you? Come on.

HUME: That’s not a -- that's not a crime.

WILLIAMS: Oh, OK.

WALLACE: All right. In any case -- you know, this is kind of a -- a Fox News Sunday panel classic, Juan and Brit back at it again.

As we mentioned earlier, President Trump made a new push last night for his travel ban in a tweet while the attack in London was still unfolding. He's taking the case to the Supreme Court. Here's what Vice President Pence had to say this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The ability to come into the United States of America is a privilege, not a right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Jason, does this latest attack add new impetus to the president's call for a travel ban?

RILEY: I -- I don't think it does. He clearly does. I mean he was linking it in -- in his tweets. But the United Kingdom is not part of the -- the list of countries that would be subjected to the ban, a, and -- and, b, again, as -- as -- as previous guests earlier said, Senator Borne (ph), I believe, mostly these are homegrown folks. That Manchester bomber was someone who had been born and raised in Manchester and so on. And here, domestically, a lot of you talked to the homeland security officials. That's what they're worried about, people already here being radicalized.

And then you see the timeline that the administration laid out for this temporary ban. They wanted several months -- they’ve had several months. So, no, I don’t -- I don’t think -- what -- what struck me about this, though, is -- is Trump, again, tweeting and -- and -- and -- and talking about this publically. And that has been a problem in these court cases that have come up so far. The judges have been throwing his words back at him, saying they speak to a state of mind here. And I think that -- again, he has to be more disciplined in how he talked about this issue.

WALLACE: Julie -- Julie, I want to pick up on that because the whole band, which was -- which was put out, the original ban, on January 27th, one week in, talked about 90 day delay, 120 day delay while they put together an extreme vetting plan. We’re now 130 days into this administration. Why didn't they put together the extreme vetting plan so they don’t have to worry about a ban?

PACE: It's a great question. That extreme vetting plan is essentially nowhere. And what we were told at the end of the first week is that the rushed rollout of the original ban was because the threat was so urgent. And certainly I think that argument has been undermined by the fact that there hasn’t been a major attack in the U.S. during that period and that the administration has not moved quickly on the extreme vetting.

And just to Jason’s point there, and it ties back into what we were talking about with Comey, the White House has been focused on this idea that this is not a travel ban. They don't want to use this language. And then the president, last night, puts that language back out on the table.

WALLACE: Panel, thank you. See you next week. And we’ll be right back with a final word.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: For the latest on the terror attack in London, please stay tuned to this station and Fox News Channel.

And that's it for today. Have a great week and we’ll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.