Jose Angel Gurria Quotes

California continues to pass the most ambitious laws in the world to expand clean energy and combat climate change.

Many are outspoken about the climate crisis, but conveniently ignore the fact that support for fossil fuels is not just incompatible with curbing emissions but dangerously counterproductive.

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 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.

I believe the state needs to control hydrocarbons.

There are some that feel like human activity is the cause for carbon emissions, and because of that, we need to revert to where we were in the 1870s for carbon emissions. I just choose to disagree with that.

For decades, NRDC has created and supported policies that will ultimately end our reliance on fossil fuels.

The second thing is, if you want to do something about global warming, you have to think much more long-term. There is something wrong with saying we should start using renewables now, while they are still incredibly expensive.

What we've got is the wholesale embrace of fracking domestically, internationally and for export. And this couldn't be further from what we really need to do to address climate change.

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.

I think you could offer seven or eight different possible ends for energy policy. Climate change is one of them. Dealing with criteria pollutants is one of those related to that.

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.

Fracking locks the U.K. into an industry that is based on fossil fuels long after our country needs to have moved to renewables.

I'm committed to the goal of Senate Bill 324, and that is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I say just put a big fat tax on carbon.

It is not easy to attain carbon neutrality by 2050.

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.

I support the need for Canada to play a significant role in reducing global emissions.

A healthy environment, a strong economy and energy independent America - that would be the purpose of my presidency, is break the strangle hold that people enjoy on fossil fuels who hate our guts.

If we are to meet the growing electricity demand in the United States without significantly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, we must maintain a diverse supply of electricity, and nuclear power must be part of that mix.

Drill everything, mine everything, roll back regulations, tweak the science, expedite permits. Sound familiar? The Republicans offer up more 19th-Century solutions to our 21st-Century energy problems.

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

I think so long as fossil fuels are cheap, people will use them and it will postpone a movement towards new technologies.

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).

When it comes to climate and energy, Gates is a radical consumerist. In his view, energy consumption is good - it just needs to be clean energy.