Peter Garrett Quotes

Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is supposed to eliminate.

While I have strongly and consistently supported the Clean Power Plan, and continue to do so, I cannot and will not support a proposal for a cap-and-trade system.

When I am president of the United States of America, there will never be any cap-and-trade in the United States.

I think we can lower our emissions. I think the world will be better off if we did that, and we can do it without cap and trade.

The reality is the cap-and-trade legislation offered by the Democrats amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals on Capitol Hill.

Consider the perverse effect cap and trade has on altruistic actions. Say you decide to buy a small, high-efficiency car. That reduces your emissions, but not your country's. Instead it allows somebody else to buy a bigger S.U.V. - because the total emissions are set by the cap.

You should be attacking the carbon emissions, period, and whether it's cap-and-trade or carbon tax or whatever, that's the realm in which we should be playing.

Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax - and it's a great big one.

Putting a tax on carbon could be an effective approach for curbing global warming pollution.

The reason we should do a carbon tax is because it's the right thing to do. It's economics 101, elementary stuff.

The cap-and-trade plan is more market driven than anything else. If you want to discourage carbon use, you have to make it more expensive, but what is crucial is that this be a worldwide program that includes China and India.

If you have a carbon cap and trade system, there'd be an agreed-to limit the amount of carbon we emit. That changes the economic picture for fossil technologies and for the renewable technologies. It makes the renewable technologies more attractive and the fossils less attractive.

Opponents of cap and trade should be careful what they wish for.

Well, I'm not saying that an emissions tax is ever going to be good policy.

Many scientists and economists also say putting a price on carbon through carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade is necessary.

I don't believe in a price on carbon, because the government is going to control it and they're going to fail.

A cap on carbon is important because it sets a specific goal for reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

When I was in Minnesota serving in the state Senate and in Washington, D.C., I did everything I could to defeat cap and trade. I didn't work to implement cap and trade.

I hope the EPA will listen to the many votes over the years in Congress opposing cap-and-trade and rescind that proposed rule.

As a California state legislator, I supported our cap-and-trade law to force polluters to pay for releasing harmful greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

Our leaders must get to grips with the huge risk that carbon dioxide emissions pose to the economy and the environment. As we know, carbon dioxide is a long-lived gas. It hangs around.

Cap and trade is not an easy one for refiners, so we tried to get some moderation in the bill, and we did, but not near as much I would like.

Cap-and-trade is a dangerous policy fraught with the potential for significant corruption, and it would hurt my constituents and our economy by raising energy costs.

If the world is to avoid a collision with nature - one that humanity surely cannot win - we must act boldly on every front, particularly with respect to carbon pricing and the coherence of our economic and energy policies.

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