Quotes About Renewables

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them.

One of our priorities should be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

One of my top priorities in Congress is to reduce U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

Almost every way we make electricity today, except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO2. And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale, is create a new system. And so, we need energy miracles.

The 20th century was the time when the world turned to use of fossil fuels and the 21st century will be the century of the renewables.

We're going to get off fossil fuels, no question. We may not do it quickly enough to avoid some pain, and I'm quite worried about that. But by the 22nd century, there's no way we'll be on fossil fuels.

I actually argue that renewables are worse than fossil fuels. It's a physical manifestation of lower power densities. More land, more materials, more mining, more metals, more waste.

No longer should we rely on oil from countries that are not necessarily friendly or democratic.

Renewables are critical in our fight against climate change.

Interestingly, the oil companies know very well that in less than 30 years they will not only be charging very high prices, but that they will be uncompetitive with renewables.

The reason renewables can't power modern civilization is because they were never meant to. One interesting question is why anybody ever thought they could.

It's time to focus all of our efforts on renewables. We will oppose the building of LNG facilities.

First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.

I can't inject renewables into a grid that doesn't have base load.

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

The flip side of renewables' low energy density is their low return on energy invested.

With the huge benefits of investing in renewables, energy efficiency and demand reduction becoming ever more obvious, it's clear that there needs to be far greater scrutiny of the policy decisions that are propelling Britain towards a nuclear future.

Moving to 100 percent renewable energy is a good economic opportunity, one that the U.S. must seize before other nations take full advantage of it.

Even those who don't believe in climate change believe we should develop renewable energy. Americans get it: it's time. This is not controversial. It's actually right in the wheelhouse of American business.

Western countries can cut down coal and replace it by renewables; I will need to have more coal.

Because fossil fuels are not only a finite resource but hazardous to the environment, it is imperative that we diversify the resources used in generating electricity.

We need to become energy independent or at least aspire to that.

There are five project types that are not fat-tailed. That means they may come in somewhat late or over budget but it's very unlikely that they will go disastrously wrong. The fortunate five? They are solar power, wind power, fossil thermal power (power plants that generate electricity by burning fossil fuels), electricity transmission, and roads. In fact, the best-performing project types in my entire database, by a comfortable margin, are wind and solar power.

Hydroelectric dams remain the way many poor countries gain access to reliable electricity, and both solar and wind might be worthwhile in some circumstances. But there is nothing in either their history or their physical attributes that suggests solar and wind in particular could or should be the centerpiece of efforts to deal with climate change.