Carbon Offsets Quotes

We have to be bringing carbon out of the atmosphere, and we can't wait for these magical technologies that are somehow going to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere in the future and mean we can do business as usual. And so, what we have to do, what we're going to need to do, is really work with nature to repair the climate.

Forest nations willing to do more than their fair share to solve the climate crisis should be rewarded through results-based payments.

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

I wish being a beekeeper, which I am, gave you a free pass on the carbon footprint, but it doesn't.

Nothing could be more regressive than carbon taxes.

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.

We have for many years included a price of carbon in our outlook. We put it in as a cost. Everything gets tested against it.

My goal is to leave this planet with the biggest carbon footprint I can possibly leave.

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

I'm anti-tax, but I'm pro-carbon tax.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

There are many theories about the best way to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere - some are ludicrous, others are at least worth study. The most commonly discussed plan is to lace the sky with reflective chemicals.

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.

There are many different ways we can choose to reduce our carbon impacts.

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

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

I do have carbon footprints because of travel, but apart from that, I am simple guy.

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.

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.

Part of what the carbon tax does is make Canada less competitive.

The trading mechanism proposed in Clean Energy Jobs is based upon sound free-market principles. It will allow emitters to find the most cost-effective ways to meet emissions reduction goals.