If coal wants a place in a carbon-constrained future, they have to look at technology like this. And we think that our rule can help stimulate technology, growth, and innovation, bring those costs down, and allow coal a more stable opportunity to continue to be invested in.

Critics play a dangerous game when they denounce the science and law EPA has used to defend clean air for more than 40 years. The American people know better.

When discussing overall impacts on employment, it is important not to overlook the new technologies and industries that can be driven by pollution control standards.

I think climate change is probably the most extreme, and it's been going on for years because it's very difficult to talk about a planetary issue like climate change and to get people who live within four-year electoral cycles to actually pay attention to something that you predict is happening way in the future.

I don't think any administration, when they come in, thinks that their job is to tell the scientists what the science looks like or to be quiet about the science. Scientists need to remain true and not allow science to be politicized. Scientists are not politicians, and no politician should consider themselves to be a scientist.

We need an international solution to the challenge of climate change, there's no question about it. But the real key is, can you actually get that - or get that solution - without the US' involvement? Can you not lead domestically, and expect the rest of the world will take action... the US needs to lead, we need to be out there.

I think that one of our most difficult international challenges is clearly climate change and making sure that the Paris agreement goes forward. While I think the international community understands that President Trump is not taking the same position as President Obama.