Matt Gaetz Quotes

We don't believe carbon capture is a proven, scalable, commercially available technology.

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.

We need a really credible perspective toward long-term de-carbonization.

The move to a zero-carbon future is unstoppable.

The fact that companies are getting into building power plants that collect their own CO2 on-site shows there's some leadership in that industry. Some industries have seen the writing on the wall: that carbon will have to be managed.

It used to be an article of faith held across parliament that the government should be 'technology neutral' to achieve cost-effective decarbonisation.

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.

The challenge of global warming should stimulate a whole raft of manifestly benign innovations - for conserving energy and generating it by 'clean' means (biofuels, innovative renewables, carbon sequestration, and nuclear fusion).

CO2 is the exhaling breath of our civilization, literally... Changing that pattern requires a scope, a scale, a speed of change that is beyond what we have done in the past.

I'm trying to be as green as I can. As an airline pilot, I have a carbon footprint that's a size 10, so it's pretty hard.

The low carbon economy is at the leading edge of a structural shift now taking place globally.

The reality is that de-carbonisation is not happening fast enough.

Enlightened self-interest from those involved in hydrocarbons should lead to the support of technologies enabling the clean use of hydrocarbons, such as carbon capture and storage, and not to the defence of deniers and cranks.

Ultimate success for a carbon tax would mean so complete a shift to renewable energy that the tax would stop raising much revenue at all.

A cap on carbon is important because it sets a specific goal for reducing carbon emissions 80% by 2050.

We need a crash program to decarbonize the economy, a big ask, but nothing less will save us.

I think, in the long run, we have to wean ourselves from a carbon-based economy. We absolutely have to.

If the world gets a lot hotter in a hurry and the primary aim is to cool it down, then the current plan of carbon mitigation will almost certainly not be effective. It'll be too little, too late, and too optimistic - in large part because the atmospheric half-life of CO2 is roughly 100 years.

I don't think you have a choice but to pull CO2 back that has already made it out, or is about to make it out, because we are not overnight shutting down all the coal plants.

The challenge of pollution and global warming is no longer the science, or the rate of innovation, but the rate of implementation: We have the clean solutions; now let's bundle them and install them.

Renewables are critical in our fight against climate change.

There's no miracle formula but we have to move towards a lower carbon economy. We don't have any other choice.

I planted trees but the idea that you can offset carbon is nonsense - planting trees is more a way of acknowledging harm and apologising.

We need to decarbonise our societies and economies.

We all need to find the simplest and easiest ways to help stop global warming.