Mitch McConnell Quotes

It may be too late for West Virginia to save itself from the ravages of Big Coal. But it's not too late for America.

If you look at the casualties, the federal government isn't waging a War on Coal. If anything, coal is waging a war on us.

The golden era for coal is over.

As a member of both the energy and environment committees, I am constantly astounded by how many of my colleagues prefer to focus on what the government can do for the nuclear or coal industries rather than why the government should support clean and sustainable energy.

I believe the state needs to control hydrocarbons.

First of all, the idea that natural gas is better than coal is a lie, especially when it comes to fracking for natural gas. It is a lie that was bought into by a lot of Democrats and a lot of environmentalists because I think they wanted to have a win against something; against coal.

Energy has become a national security issue and as technology continues to improve, there will be more debates like the one on Keystone.

In the world of energy politics, the sudden vanishing of the word 'coal' is a remarkable and unprecedented event.

It seems the EPA has worked hard to devise new regulations that are designed to eliminate coal mining, coal burning, usage of coal.

Our society, our culture - the greatness of America - goes hand-in-hand with energy, and our leaders need to wake up. We need energy, OK?

The shift to a cleaner energy economy wont happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.

The discussion about energy options tends to be an intensely emotional, polarised, mistrustful, and destructive one. Every option is strongly opposed: the public seem to be anti-wind, anti-coal, anti-waste-to-energy, anti-tidal-barrages, anti-carbon-tax, and anti-nuclear.

I do believe that the coal industry sees the cultural shift toward cleaner energy and global warming solutions as a threat to their interests.

America's industrial strength was built on burning coal. No politician wanted to mess with coal.

The 'environmental left' tells us that, though we have natural resources like natural gas and oil and coal, and though we can feed the world, we should keep those things in the ground, put up fences, and be about prohibition.

To shut off coal, or to say you can't have further coal development, I think is the wrong way to go.

I say just put a big fat tax on carbon.

The fact that this is what John McCain is suggesting - more offshore drilling and more nuclear power plants? I don't think so. Not even close. Not even in the ballpark of what we need.

When the sun is sending more energy to earth in one hour than the entire world consumes in a year, any political play to undermine our ability to harness this energy effectively and efficiently is clearly not economical but it's also unethical.

More coal-to-liquid means more energy and a stronger economy.

The U.S. limits mercury, arsenic, and soot from power plants. Yet, astonishingly, there are no national limits on how much carbon pollution these plants can dump into our atmosphere.

It's imperative that we opt out of the fossil fuel endgame.

There may be no issue that better illustrates the differences between Republicans and Democrats than energy. Consider it the 'all of the above' strategy for reducing gas prices, versus the 'all pain, no gain' plan for punishing those who emit carbon (like you).

Since stepping down as laboratory director in 1999, I have devoted an increasing fraction of my time to international issues. I am involved with energy, environment, and sustainability issues, particularly as they involve new energy sources free of greenhouse gases.

In reality, Republicans have long been at war with clean energy. They have ridiculed investments in solar and wind power, bashed energy-efficiency standards, attacked state moves to promote renewable energy and championed laws that would enshrine taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels while stripping them from wind and solar.