Rex Tillerson Quotes

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.

We hear people talk about putting a price on carbon, but they won't talk about how much that price of carbon is.

When you look at the social cost of carbon - and there is a lot of ambiguity around that - what you also need to be doing is looking at the benefits of carbon and what that has on increased agriculture production.

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.

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.

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

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.

Tax what you burn not what you earn.

To some, a cap-and-trade system might sound like a neat approach where the market sorts everything out. But in fact, in some ways it is worse than a tax. With a tax, the costs are obvious. With a cap-and-trade system, the costs are hidden and shifted around. For that reason, many politicians tend to like it. But that is dangerous.

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.

Ultimate success for a carbon tax would mean so complete a shift to renewable energy that the tax would stop raising much revenue at all.

Not only will a carbon fee reduce carbon emissions, it will force big polluters to pay for the damage their pollution does to public health and the environment, generating billions in new revenue for the American people.

Many retailers have complained bitterly to me about the complexity of the Carbon Reduction Commitment. It's not a commitment; it's a tax.

We need a really credible perspective toward long-term de-carbonization.

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

The whole action around a carbon pricing mechanism, or carbon tax, is what you do with the money. Both France and Washington state proposed solving climate on the backs of workers. And that's a bad strategy.

I can tell you that a carbon tax will be a total economic disaster.

Many have criticized a federal carbon tax, saying that it would increase energy costs. Some continue to oppose it even when that revenue would be used to reduce other taxes in what's known as a tax swap.

If we become better with carbon capture technology, I think we can start a global trend toward carbon awareness.

We need to decarbonise our societies and economies.

Nothing could be more regressive than carbon taxes.

Why not put a tax on carbon emissions. It would raise a lot of money, it would reduce the environmental damages in the future, it would solve so many problems, and it would be a much more constructive thing to do than to think about raising the income tax.

The problem carbon is that everyone thinks we have an energy problem, we don't. We have plenty of energy. We have a carbon problem. Carbon is a material, so we have a material problem, not an energy problem.