Andrew Ross Sorkin Quotes

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

Recently though, our State Governments have discussed instigating a carbon trading scheme - the details are still to be decided - and that's an encouraging sign.

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.

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

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

A Labor prime minister, Julia Gillard, who does believe in climate change, nevertheless advised her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, to abandon his emissions trading scheme.

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints.

Putting a price on carbon pollution is one of the best things we can do to stem the tide of climate change.

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

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.

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.

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.

China has adopted and is implementing its national climate change program. This includes mandatory national targets for reducing energy intensity and discharge of major pollutants and increasing forest coverage and the share of renewable energy for the period of 2005 through 2010.

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.

I have advocated an entirely different approach than cap and tax, which would be worldwide in application and which emphasizes technology as a way of reducing total emissions.

Tax what you burn not what you earn.

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

For the U.S., I think we should have a carbon tax, for environmental reasons.

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.

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

But who knows, some years from now if there's a global emissions trading scheme agreement, as many have hoped for, then I'm sure Australia would be part of it.

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

There is not enough money in Washington for the subsidies we will need to solve the global warming problem. The money must come from Wall Street.

The market does not work in energy...Carbon has to have a value. Today in the U.S. and China it has no value

At some point, policymakers will get around to dealing with additional policies around climate in ways to incentivize certain behaviors.