Ramez Naam Quotes

I think that once people understand the great risks that climate change poses, they will naturally want to choose products and services that cause little or no emissions of greenhouse gases, which means 'low-carbon consumption.' This will apply across the board, including electricity, heating, transport and food.

Humanity has nearly suffocated the globe with carbon dioxide, yet nuclear power plants that produce no such emissions are so mired in objections and obstruction that, despite renewed interest on every continent, it is unlikely another will be built in the United States.

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

It's not possible to solve the climate crisis while we continue to expand fracking.

We really need to kick the carbon habit and stop making our energy from burning things. Climate change is also really important. You can wreck one rainforest then move, drain one area of resources and move onto another, but climate change is global.

We must reduce the emissions 100 percent. In Venezuela, the emissions are currently insignificant compared to the emissions of the developed countries.

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.

The reason we should do a carbon tax is because it's the right thing to do. It's economics 101, elementary stuff.

Look, very clearly there are things that need to be done urgently in relation to climate change, and of those the most obvious is to have an enforceable and equitable arrangement delivering deep cuts in emissions into the middle of the century.

It's not as though we can keep burning coal in our power plants. Coal is a finite resource, too. We must find alternatives, and it's a better idea to find alternatives sooner then wait until we run out of coal, and in the meantime, put God knows how many trillions of tons of CO2 that used to be buried underground into the atmosphere.

Climate change is destroying our path to sustainability. Ours is a world of looming challenges and increasingly limited resources. Sustainable development offers the best chance to adjust our course.

The United States did not sign Kyoto, yet its emissions are not that different from the countries that did sign it.

Because of climate changes, it's not just a question of producing energy. It's a question of producing energy in a way that we can live with in the long term. If you look at the available pieces, from conservation to nuclear, solar, whatever, and you put them all together, we can't do it.

Under the Paris agreement, every one of the 147 signatories issues what is called an 'intended nationally determined contribution' (INDC), which amounts to a promise that the nation will take certain actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by a certain date.

Putting a price on carbon pollution is one of the best things we can do to stem the tide of climate change.

Our pollution out of carbon emissions is still very, very low compared to the world.

Fracking locks the U.K. into an industry that is based on fossil fuels long after our country needs to have moved to renewables.

We actually all care about the environment, and most people believe in climate change and believe that mankind has something to do with that - how much is scientifically debatable, but there is some effect and we all have an interest in reducing carbon emissions, just having cleaner air, cleaner oceans. It's something we can get behind.

I don't believe in carbon offsetting. Planting 60 trees so you don't have to say your Hail Marys that night? It's a crock.

Fossil fuels will run out not because of limited resources but because of the environmental impact. If I can solve that impact, I have basically increased the resource base by a vast amount.

I believe that it is impossible to stop people from using the fossil fuels, so we need to develop technologies which allow us to use them without creating environmental havoc on the planet.

There is no high-carbon future

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

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