Van Jones Quotes

Government needs to do two things: put a price on carbon and invest heavily in new technologies.

As is widely accepted, putting a price on carbon pollution is the lowest cost and most efficient way to tackle dangerous climate change.

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

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.

Opponents have claimed that regulating carbon will hurt the economy and businesses. The economies of California and British Columbia prove otherwise.

The U.K. has been at the forefront of developing the climate change policy architecture that can ensure climate action is integrated into economic decision making.

I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism.

There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government.

I do not believe we can effectively move Australia to a lower emission economy, which is what we need to do if we're going to make a contribution to a global reduction in greenhouse gases, without putting a price on carbon.

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.

The carbon tax is the single biggest rolled gold example of Federal Labor not listening.

I think we need to price carbon; there's no question about it. The way we do it needs to be based on science and not political debates and attacks, and that's why I'm drawing on experts and best practices from around the world.

Labor believes in sustainability. We believe in acting on climate change, not just talking about it.

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

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

A cap and trade system would put some kind of price on the carbon footprint.

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

We're going to make sure there is a strong price on carbon right across the country, and we're hoping that the provinces are going to be able to do that, in a way, for themselves.

One thing is that you won't get climate action without equity, and Greens around the world have always understood this. This has been the dividing point between the green party of France and Emmanuel Macron: You can't get climate policy without equity.

The Liberals would love to have people believe that the choice is a carbon tax or nothing. I reject that.

From Portland's ban on large, fossil fuel terminals to Oregon's Clean Fuels Standard and the Clean Electricity and Coal Transition Act, our local actions send ripples through the energy landscape nationwide.

The majority of America wants action on climate change. The majority of America thinks we should regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. And the majority of America thinks we should prioritize solar and wind infrastructure over fossil fuels. Those are impressive majorities, ones that every office seeker and office holder should heed.

If someone wants to do a carbon fee and someone else wants to do a cap on emissions or a renewable portfolio standard, we don't start labeling each other as more or less progressive.

Canadians didn't vote for a carbon tax. Justin Trudeau campaigned, promised that he wouldn't create a carbon tax.

There are some really wealthy hedge fund billionaires in San Francisco who have pledged a lot of money for Democratic candidates to argue for cap and trade and carbon tax and all these things.