Zac Goldsmith Quotes

We fought hard for green taxes and won.

Tax what you burn not what you earn.

The carbon tax is the single biggest rolled gold example of Federal Labor not listening.

We should tax what we burn, not what we earn.

I have advocated an entirely different approach than cap and tax, which would be worldwide in application and which emphasizes technology as a way of reducing total emissions.

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

Putting a tax on carbon could be an effective approach for curbing global warming pollution.

For the U.S., I think we should have a carbon tax, for environmental reasons.

I'm a fiscal hawk. I vote against all taxes, but I do believe the environment, and climate change, is a bigger issue than fiscal deficits are as a risk to the nation.

Well, I'm not saying that an emissions tax is ever going to be good policy.

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

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

The war on driving includes calls for carbon and gas taxes, tens of billions of gas tax money diverted to inefficient and little-used mass transit projects, and opposition to building new roads and highways.

I say just put a big fat tax on carbon.

Most Americans are more concerned about the economy and job creation. And they can't understand why the Obama administration or the Democrat majority in Congress wants to pass a bill like the cap-and-trade tax that will cost us jobs, that will hurt our economy, that will drive up costs for families, as well as for small businesses.

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.

Preventing global warming from becoming a planetary catastrophe may take something even more drastic than renewable energy, superefficient urban design, and global carbon taxes.

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).

China has adopted and is implementing its national climate change program. This includes mandatory national targets for reducing energy intensity and discharge of major pollutants and increasing forest coverage and the share of renewable energy for the period of 2005 through 2010.

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.

Franklin Roosevelt was very concerned about environmental issues.

Recently though, our State Governments have discussed instigating a carbon trading scheme - the details are still to be decided - and that's an encouraging sign.

The reality is the cap-and-trade legislation offered by the Democrats amounts to an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals on Capitol Hill.

I rarely fly, for environmental reasons more than anything else.

Consider the perverse effect cap and trade has on altruistic actions. Say you decide to buy a small, high-efficiency car. That reduces your emissions, but not your country's. Instead it allows somebody else to buy a bigger S.U.V. - because the total emissions are set by the cap.