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.

If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.

I honestly don't know but if America continues to refuse to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions I see a bleak future not only for American society but for the world as a whole. This is a global problem that is not going away and the United States is an obstacle to solving it.

I hope that in future Congresses there will reemerge a recognition that climate change is a reality that our policies to meet our energy needs must also deal responsibly with environmental issues including the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

But reducing harmful emissions abating our dependence on foreign oil and developing alternative renewable energy sources have benefits that go beyond environmental health they improve personal health enhance national security and encourage our nation's economic viability.

Without international participation jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas to countries that require few if any environmental protections harming the global environment as well as the U.S. economy.

Factory farming is one of the biggest contributors to the most serious environmental problems. The meat industry causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars trucks planes and ships in the world.

Nuclear power will help provide the electricity that our growing economy needs without increasing emissions. This is truly an environmentally responsible source of energy.

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.

You know if you're Guy Kawasaki and you create a car that gets 500 miles a gallon with zero emissions people on the Internet would say: 'I could have done that in half an hour and it's been done before. What's the big deal? I expected something more from him.' Meanwhile they didn't do it right? They're still living at home with their mothers.

I want a Mini-Cooper because it's fuel efficient emissions efficient and all that stuff. It's small and better for the environment. I think that will be my next car.

The environmental benefits of hydrogen are also outstanding. When used as an energy source hydrogen produces no emissions besides water. Zero polluting emissions an amazing advance over the current sources of energy that we use.