Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel industries spent»

Fossil fuel industries spent an estimated $ 213 million lobbying U.S. and European Union decision makers last year, according to a new report published by Oxfam International on Friday.

Between 2010 and 2012 alone, individuals and companies in the fossil fuel industry spent an unprecedented $ 90.5 million to elect friendly Republicans, an increase of 66 percent over the previous two election cycles (compared with $ 15.7 million they gave to Democrats), according to Center for Responsive Politics data.

The «big money» that the fossil fuel industry spends is to provide a low - cost source of energy to supply the needs of the population of the world.

Not exact matches

Canada spends billions every year subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

The government and the oil and gas industry have spent lavishly to promote fossil fuel development, but a poll for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers found that only 51 % of us think tar sands / oil sands development is worth the environmental risk; 49 % think it isn't.

Environmental groups, climate activists, and some Democrats in Congress have long complained that federal agencies, and DOE in particular, have spent too much money supporting the fossil fuel industry, even as it racked up decades of impressive profits.

All those millions the fossil fuel industry has on hand due to its excessive profits are being well spent.

When energy consumers, like Japan's gov» t, decide that it's better to spend a bit more money on limitless and safe ethanol, solar, wind, water, or geothermal power than on limited and dangerous fossil fuels, then the energy industry will change because it must.

, and Putin — create new industries and jobs in clean energy products and services — reduce payroll taxes — make fossil fuels include more of their real costs, including health / pollution and our mega military spending in the Middle East — AND, apply the marketplace to force real major mitigation of global warming rise.

After all, governments currently spend about half a trillion dollars a year on subsidies, mostly hidden and economically unsound, for fossil fuels... yes, our taxes are paying industries to burn coal and oil.

So we spend # 13.84 per household (per year) on clean new sources of energy, nearly three times as much more to clean up the mess the nuclear industry has already made and up to eight times as much to subsidise fossil fuels.

In this graphic, you can see that according to Oil Change International analysis, governments around the world are spending perhaps more than $ 1 trillion USD combined per year subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

They promote spending $ 22 billion just in federal money during FY - 2014 on climate change studies; costly solar projects of every description; wind turbines that blight scenic vistas and slaughter millions of birds and bats annually, while wind energy developers are exempted from endangered species and other environmental laws that apply to all other industries; and ethanol programs that require millions of acres of farmland and vast quantities of water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuel energy to produce a gasoline additive that reduces mileage, harms engines, drives up food prices... and increases CO2 emissions.

In the issue of finding resources to implement sustainable development, we see countries using the economic crisis as an excuse, while at the same time spending 100s of billions of dollars subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable industry in the world.

In order to save your children from the evil fossil fuel industries who pay copious amounts of money to this blog to spread misinformation, you spend hours of your own time astroturfing this blog with post after post demanding peer reviewed answers to all your questions whilst ignoring anything directing you to what you think is an opinion blog (unless it's «proof» of fossil fuel funding, then blogs are apparently OK) just to convince us that man emits CO2 and the world has warmed since industrialisation??

The billions spent by the fossil fuel industry to capture, refine, and distribute fossil fuels, and the billions in profit they take back in return, comprise that «BIG money» that spent on the «CAGW side.»

In keeping with their outsized roles, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil spent more on campaign contributions and lobbying than any other fossil fuel company this year.

Yet, we see politicians block reform on climate change on a regular basis and the reason why is simple — the fossil fuel industry is spending millions of dollars on politicians who will support their bottom line on Capitol Hill.

Like the tobacco lobbyists who spent years denying the links between smoking and cancer, global warming denialists don't have to win the debate — they simply have to confuse the public indefinitely to successfully undermine any political action which might hit the interests of their backers in the fossil fuel industries

This year, the oil, gas and coal industries combined have spent more than $ 153 million on ads promoting fossil fuels and attacking renewables, according to the New York Times.

Every euro and dollar spent on adaptation and mitigation is being systematically undercut by even more money spent on the fossil fuel industry.

Even the era of tightened government spending and «not picking winners and losers» is no match for the political might of the fossil fuel industry.

Comparing the entire fossil fuel industry to the billions spent on AGW advocacy is nonsensical, not least since they actually spend more money on pro-AGW causes than anti-AGW (they don't actually care if you impose carbon taxes on their customers, that only hurts poor people).

Wednesday's announcement was all about rewarding climate activists and their wealthy funders for the years they've spent pressuring public officials to punish energy companies and to declare «war on the fossil fuel industry.»

Finally, it seems to me that if Lord Deben is wrong to claim that his / the CCC's critics «have a very vested interest from the fossil fuel industry» and that they are «spending billions of pounds», then there may be a possibility that The CCC, under Lord Deben's chairmanship, may have prematurely ruled out criticism, and on an erroneous basis.

The only people who oppose it are people who have a very vested interest from the fossil fuel industry, who are spending billions of pounds, trying to get people like you to say that, in order to confuse people.

The total amount of money spent at the federal level in the 2012 election by the top fossil fuel industry donors who would benefit the most from the removal of aggregate campaign finance limits was $ 11,504,213.

They include everything from direct subsidies to tax loopholes and government spending on infrastructure on which fossil fuel industries depend.

The first reason for confusion is the fossil fuel industry, notably the Western Fuels Association, Exxon - Mobil and Koch Oil Co have spent half a billion dollars so far to confuse everybody.