president trump to stay in the paris accord including one from elon musk founder of a number of companies. he says don't know which way paris will go but i've done all i can to advise directly to potus through others in the white house and via councils that we remain. elon musk says he'll quit the business council if he leaves paris deal. president trump has said he'll announce his decision today at 3:00 eastern. we'll have live coverage from the rose garden here on c-span. here's more about today's announcement. >> we know the mechanics, mr. scott, as far as what might happen or what avenue the public administration might take. can you talk about where the trump administration is on if it is going to stay or go and who is within the white house, you know, at least advocating he ideas for staying or going?

>> good morning. we are pretty much where we were, if you think back to where we were during the campaign where president trump basically was vowing to pull the u.s. out of the paris agreement. in a sense we may be no different place than there, right, since we, the president never really gave any signals at he was deeply . considering his pledge the past two to three months a lot more chatter and meetings in the white house in terms of atemmingts by those who want to keep the u.s. in the agreement to get to president trump and try to convince him of the -- really a myriad of ways we could stay in the deal while perhaps weakening the u.s. pledge, weakening the u.s. commitment. it is something that would make staying in the deal still pail

atable but i don't think those voices are probably going to win out in the end. >> as far as philosophy, then, what would you think is the value of the u.s. staying or leaving the deal? >> well, there's probably great value globally to the u.s. staying in the deal. the reason i say that is i followed the u.n. summit for probably about a dozen of these over the years where they really tried to piece together a broad agreement, sort of an umbrella deal that doesn't do a lot of the binding targets and requirements such as -- that sort of really led to the downfall of the kyoto protocol. really rather one that has it sort of underpinned in pledges and then those pledges by countries can be compared and reviewed over time and then a mechanism for strengthening them. i think that approach, which was largely divided at the be -- largely devised at the

request of the u.s., and that is ironic now because we're going to quite possibly have the u.s. pull out of the agreement, that it was sort of the for by the u.s. for world we're going to be at a place where we have more than 190 countries in the world still committed to dealing with climate change and only a very, very few other than the u.s. outside of the deal. >> at the end of the day since the agreement was nonbinding what is the long-term effect and particularly as other countries look at us and the decision we are about to make? >> well, sort of two sides of this. the economic side these days is that we are already down a path .oward renewable energy the cost of clean energy has come down so far. probably i think roughly 80% reduction in costs over the last eight years for some of

these technologies. in some sense we've already gone too far in terms of making progress on reducing emissions and the market signals that are being sent are not going to be interrupted by sort of the tatic of the u.s. removing . self from the climate deal on the other side of the spectrum there is a great deal of international resentment that is going to be triggered once this announcement is final if the u.s. really is getting out of the paris agreement. and that's because the u.s. is the largest historical mentor. you may have read many times china has overtaken the u.s. in terms of being the top but that's really just about how much emissions the total tons each year that a country emits. but since the beginning of the industrial age the u.s. is basically responsible for the largest portion of carbon pollution in the atmosphere.

because of that, for the u.s. to not be in an agreement that it helped negotiate is going to complicate things i think enormously on some other relationships for the u.s. just to walk away from that agreement. >> mr. scott, before we let you go, and quickly, there is a full page ad out calling for the president to stay in the deal, endorsed by companies like adobe, apple, blue cross/blue shield, facebook, and others. why do you think they're putting this ad out? what about other industries that might say, you know, pulling out of the deal is vital for their interests as well? >> well, you know, it's interesting. i was around when president bush decided not to put the kyoto protocol, maintain the kyoto protocol, and it's such a different era from that time in the sense that the -- there was a lot of push from the oil and gas industry, fossil fuel, many, many companies in this

country not to be part of that agreement, in part because there were binding targets under kyoto, but also, it's just been a sea change in terms of corporate reaction to climate change. this is just one of the letters that have been put out in recent months. but also, just hundreds of other companies. lots of just pressing this administration to stay in the deal and i think -- my takeaway from that is what is fascinating is that in prior administrations democratic or republican you would basically -- those messages would certainly be swaying for an administration. but i think everyone has to keep in mind that this president did not run like -- run a campaign in that way. he's not necessarily responsive corporate pleas.

it depends on the issue. in the end there was some feeling that a traditional campaign of getting all these companies onboard to save the paris agreement might save the not have think that been the case with this president. >> dean scott talking about the future of this paris deal as it's known as. mr. scott, thanks for your time. >> thanks for having me. >> and president trump announcing his decision this afternoon in the rose garden. we'll have live coverage beginning at 3:00 p.m. eastern ere on c-span. >> on sunday our guest on "in depth --" >> if you grow up looking at thousands and thousands of faces until one day you see that one face that you feel was put on earth just for you and that instantly you fall in love n that moment. for me, trump was like that except the opposite.

when i first saw him on the campaign trail i thought this is a person who is unique, horrible, amazing, terrible characteristics were put on earth, up know, specifically for me to appreciate or unappreciate or whatever the verb is. because i really had been spending a lot of the last 10 to 12 years without knowing it preparing for donald trump to happen. >> mr. taibbi is a contributor to "rolling stone" magazine and is the author of several books, including "smells like dead elephants" and "dispatches from a rotting empire," "the great derangement, a terrifying true story of war, politics, and religion." "a story of bankers, politicians, and the most audacious power grab in american history." his most recent book "insane clown president" dispatches from the 2016 circus. during our live, three-hour conversation we'll take your calls, tweets, and facebook

questions on mr. taibbi's literary career. watch "in depth" with author and journalist matt taibbi live from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern unday. >> sunday on "q & a." >> there is a political structure crafted in the 1927 radio act. primary actor herbert hoover, secretary of commerce. and those rules 90 years ago still govern the way we actually allow resources to be used in our economy today. >> clemson university professor and former chief economist at the fcc thomas hazlett talks about his book "the political spectrum" which looks at the history and politics of u.s. communications policy. >> when we went to this political system for allocating spectrum rights in 1927, within a couple years, the regulators at the commission are renewing licenses but very carefully

noting that propaganda stations will not be allowed. in fact, early on, 1929, in that period, you had left wing stations affected use that political term owned by the wcfo in chicago, a labor union, and webd, a socialist who bought a station near new york city. they wanted for political purposes free speech you might say, they wanted to espouse their opinions. these were immediately dubbed propaganda stations by the regulators. when they were renewed they were told to be very careful about expressing their opinions. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q & a." >> members of the supreme court posed for their class photo this morning including the latest addition to court, confirmed by the senate in april.

xxx