Lynn Good Quotes

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

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.

I have to tell you with regards to global warming that that's something, which, you're right, the scientists haven't entirely resolved, but no question about one thing, it's getting warmer, and a lot of good reasons for us to use less energy, to use it more efficiently and to develop sources here in this country that could allow us to be more independent of foreign sources.

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).

I have been a long-term environmental advocate for the agriculture industry. I have particularly tried to push carbon farming or carbon sequestration.

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

Climate change is due to the use of energy for industrial growth, which has been and is overwhelmingly based on fossil fuels.

Climate change is severely impacting the health of our planet and all of its inhabitants, and we must transition to a clean energy economy that does not rely on fossil fuels.

Obama is a clown. You don't have to be a scientist to know that the President doesn't know what he's talking about when he says fossil fuels are the energy of the past. We have more oil than we need. We'll never run out of it. It's all we've got.

If coal is going to be used, the only response - because it is the dirtiest of all fuels - is that we have to learn how to do carbon capture and storage and we have to learn how to do it quickly on a commercial scale.

I expect an energy bill to increase and diversify supply and stabilize energy prices - not drive up energy costs in one part of the country to subsidize energy in another region.

Tax what you burn not what you earn.

Even if every major government were to slap huge taxes on carbon fuels - which is not going to happen - it wouldn't do much to halt climate change any time soon. What it would do is cost us hundreds of billions - if not trillions - of dollars, because alternative energy technologies are not yet ready to take up the slack.

What we've got is the wholesale embrace of fracking domestically, internationally and for export. And this couldn't be further from what we really need to do to address climate change.

Carbon is probably a bit harder to wrap since it's procedural.

If you have a carbon cap and trade system, there'd be an agreed-to limit the amount of carbon we emit. That changes the economic picture for fossil technologies and for the renewable technologies. It makes the renewable technologies more attractive and the fossils less attractive.

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.

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

I am a true believer that we have to change the way we generate and consume energy in the United States.

Either you abandon fossil fuels, or you find a way to get that carbon back.

From Portland's ban on large, fossil fuel terminals to Oregon's Clean Fuels Standard and the Clean Electricity and Coal Transition Act, our local actions send ripples through the energy landscape nationwide.

We are strong supporters of energy efficiency. The question is: what is the most appropriate way of doing it?

This is the way that I like to phrase it: we want to focus on 100% of the problem, and you can only focus on 100% of global emissions if you have technology that is exportable, clean, reliable, and cheap.

We need to achieve zero emissions from fossil fuel sources by the second half of the century. That doesn't mean by 2050 exactly, but it means by that time we need to be pretty much on the way to achieving it.

If carbon came out of the ground, it has to go back into the ground.