Sentences with phrase «fueled by government policies»

Fueled by government policies and the broad decline of the stock market, the Chinese real estate market has seen a spike in sales activity in recent months despite poor underlying fundamentals, leading many observers to suggest that a speculative bubble is about to burst.

Not exact matches

In the case of limiting exports of refined fuel to B.C., he said, the government could argue it is simply pursuing a policy of enhancing value by relieving a glut of unprocessed oil from the oilsands for the good of its citizens.

Last year, the federal government announced it would develop a policy that aims to cut more carbon pollution than any other in the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, by promoting the production and use of cleaner fuels in vehicles, buildings and industry.

Other environmental policies include promoting smarter energy use through the ecoEnergy Initiative; a Chemical Management Plan to regulate chemicals harmful to human health and the environment; $ 1.5 billion over seven years for the production of renewable fuels; a commitment to ensure that 90 percent of Canadian electricity needs are generated through non-emitting sources by 2020; and additional government funding to acquire and preserve ecologically sensitive lands.

The report authored by the chief energy policy adviser to government, the Energy Commission, says the amount required will expended on natural gas, light crude oil, diesel and heavy fuel oil to power the various thermal plants as the country looks to contain the threat of erratic energy supply on the economy.

If Palin does make a stab at presidential politics, she'll have a natural following among Tea Party activists, whose grassroots network is fueled by anger over the growth of the federal government and President Barack Obama's policies.

The government's policy is also, in part, a reaction to a growing awareness of the environmental damage done by fossil fuels, especially global warming.

Some countries have been able to reduce their emissions steadily over a 10 - year period, often by a combination of government policies and market reaction to the availability of fossil fuels and other natural resources.

Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emission by 20 percent and raise government revenue by 2.9 trillion, well over the funds needed for intelligent policy and action on climate adaptation.»

This is according to the government's ambitious energy policy goals, which are driven by various well - known reasons: fossil fuels such as oil and gas are running out, becoming more and more expensive and are bad for the environment.

The US Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established federal responsibility for all civil used nuclear fuel and obliged the government to begin removing used fuel from nuclear facilities by 1998 for disposal in a federal facility.

The government noted Japan's basic energy policy - decided by the Cabinet in April 2014 - aims to promote the nuclear fuel cycle, including the promotion of fast reactor development.

The document doesn't take readers much beyond what is already well established: that without sustained and focused climate and energy policies by governments around the world, the potential of renewable energy technologies to compete with fossil fuels remains deeply limited.

He is wrong that A) we have to do so by all becoming small farmers, B) that if that were desirable we could do so easily, C) that economics is not science, D) that it doesn't help to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, E) that government policies are irrelevant, and most of all, that F) what he says is clear, but everybody is either too stupid and lazy to get it or is deliberately lying about it.

A new National Research Council report finds that by the year 2050, the U.S. may be able to reduce petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent for light - duty vehicles — cars and small trucks — via a combination of more efficient vehicles; the use of alternative fuels like biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen; and strong government policies to overcome high costs and influence consumer choices.

The pledges and determination shown by world governments at the Paris climate change talks in Paris meant there would likely be «further policies aimed at shifting the fuel - mix towards cleaner, lower - carbon fuels, with renewable energy, along with natural gas, the main beneficiary,» said Dale.

LONDON, NEW YORK March 8 — Fossil fuel companies risk wasting $ 1.6 trillion of expenditure by 2025 if they base their business on emissions policies already announced by governments instead of international climate goals, Carbon Tracker warns in a report released today, that models the IEA's 1.75 C scenario for the first time.

Carbon taxes are the only policy tool that, by slashing demand in a rapid, predictable way, divests our economy from fossil fuels and enables governments, business, and consumers to make investments in the transition to clean energy.

The poor are hurt the most by the anti fossil fuel policies that government enacts based on the false prophecies of doom and gloom in the IPCC's Climate Reports.

The Missouri River Basin is a threatened bioregion due to unmitigated abuse by extractive fossil fuel industries, aided and abetted by federal and local government policies and actions which deny sovereign and inherent Native rights to manage land and water resources.

For the past four years, a set of right - wing advocacy groups, largely funded by the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel industry, has been waging jihad on bipartisan government policies that support renewable energy.

Such a transition would save $ 1.8 trillion over the next two decades, says a study by the Climate Policy Initiative, which also found that governments and taxpayers will bear the greatest financial risk if fossil fuel reserves are stranded underground.

We now know that for a decade the Howard Government's policies have been not so much influenced but actually written by a tiny cabal of powerful fossil fuel lobbyists representing the very corporations whose commercial interests would be affected by any move to reduce Australia's burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government delivered more than twice as many federal dollars to research initiatives, tax incentives and other programs benefiting fossil fuels than it supplied to renewable energy from 2002 to 2008, according to a report released Friday by two public policy groups.

The government's energy poverty eradication programme was 8 years old by 2008, and neither it nor any of its existing or new climate policies were having any positive effect on the levels of fuel poverty.

The US Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established federal responsibility for all civil used nuclear fuel and obliged the government to begin removing used fuel from nuclear facilities by 1998 for disposal in a federal facility.

The least efficient are ethanol and biodiesel — two fuels booming in production because of supportive government policies, followed by rapid investment.

One of the studies found that 2025 emissions could be reduced by as much as 4.5 GtCO2e through a variety of actions available to local governments and businesses, such as aggressive replacement of coal - fired energy production with clean energy sources and the implementation of policies like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard and tougher vehicular fuel standards regardless of whether the federal government pursues them or not.

A lot of the apparent growth in the following years has been fueled by government bailouts, loose monetary policy and huge injections of capital in the form of quantitative easing.