Sam Brownback Quotes

The most difficult thing for us to do is to mitigate and offset our agricultural emissions. If we find a way to do that, then we're showing other countries how to do it, too.

If we moved from industrialized agriculture to re-localized organic agriculture, we could sequester about one quarter of the carbon moving into the air and destroying our glaciers, oceans, forests and lands.

Depending on how you farm, your farm is either sequestering or releasing carbon.

The enthusiasm around carbon capture and sequestration was probably greater before the shale-gas discovery and the low prices were so prevalent.

Calculating how much carbon is absorbed by which forests and farms is a tricky task, especially when politicians do it.

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.

Eighty per cent of global warming comes from livestock and deforestation.

Tax what you burn not what you earn.

It is impossible to talk about slowing climate change without talking about reducing CO2 emissions. Equally, it is impossible to talk about adapting to climate change without considering how we will feed ourselves. And it is out of the question that we can adapt agriculture without conserving crop diversity.

If we didn't have a sustainable agriculture industry, who would be paying the then-missing taxes to support our defence, police, roads, airports, elderly, parks, public sporting facilities and much more?

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

Climate neutrality means a situation where the world can naturally absorb the emissions that will continue to be produced in our societies.

There is simply no defending the preferred mode of travel for many of the celebrity crazies who lecture us about carbon credits. Do you think these folks are willing to give up their mansions and private jets in order to 'save the planet?'

The UK is one of the only nations on earth that has actually met and even exceeded its goals under the Kyoto Protocol.

I like to think of climate action as a three-legged stool.

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.

Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming-the jury is still out.

Even leaving aside government policy, whole industries are already making expensive changes around the perceived need to 'go green.' Al Gore and countless other prophets of global catastrophe are making megamillions pushing these expensive solutions. Schoolchildren around the globe are being frightened by tales of impending calamity.

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.

Carbon zero simply means that the emissions you are releasing either are zero or balance out to zero.

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.

The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.

Talking nice about sun and wind and green jobs is just greenwash.