Like fossil fuel development or not, the Kemper plant is at the center of U.S. EPA's plans to regulate carbon dioxide from new power plants and at the center of global emissions, considering that «low - rank» coals like Mississippi lignite constitute half the world's coal supply.
Not exact matches
Trump's energy plan reads
like a wish list from the
fossil fuel industry: it envisions unfettered oil, gas and coal
development as a path to national prosperity and energy independence.
Like other countries (h / t Canada), there is a dangerous disconnect between a stated need for climate action, and continued plans for
fossil fuel development.
Like the recent Fort McMurray fire, these blazes appear to be burning near
fossil fuel infrastructure and
development zones.
Tribal economics
like Crow are skewed towards
fossil fuels as a result of historic leasing policies by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, complimented by large amounts of
fossil fuel influence, and a lack of re-indigenized and long - term self sustainable
development strategies.
Rich, industrialised countries
like the EU and US have a legal obligation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC — which the talks fall under) to take the lead in cutting their emissions while providing the finance and technology to poorer countries to adapt to climate impacts and avoid the same
fossil -
fuel intensive
development pathways they did.
Development of extreme energy projects
like the Alberta Tar Sands, Bakken Shale Oil and coal from the Powder River Basin, has
fueled an explosion in proposed
fossil fuel infrastructure in the Northwest.
A campaign is a sustained effort toward a specific outcome,
like getting a city to ban
fossil fuel development or a public institution to commit to a just switch to renewable energy that communities have more control over.
Rapid
development and adoption of carbon capture technology will require close collaboration between leading research universities
like MIT and the
fossil fuel industry.
On the eve of the 2017 Annual Meetings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund, Oil Change International and E3G have launched briefings showing that while some multilateral
development banks are making good progress on climate action, many are still financing billions of dollars in
fossil fuel projects despite mounting climate impacts and global commitments
like the Paris Agreement reached in December 2015.
They will lock Europe into
fossil fuel use, jeopardise emissions reduction targets and prevent investments in genuine solutions —
like the
development of community renewable energy resources, and energy savings projects.
Many at Lima, perhaps most, understand that
fossil fuels are their friend, especially those from poor countries
like China and India that want to speed their economic
development, or be compensated if they don't.
«At a time when science is crystal clear that we need to leave most proven
fossil fuel reserves in the ground, anything that makes further exploration and
development more profitable —
like this EU proposal — is totally irresponsible.»
Using public lands for
development of dirty
fossil fuels like coal poses a significant and swiftly increasing threat to our natural heritage.
The annual $ 7 billion figure does not include industry freebies
like publicly funded infrastructure for
fossil fuel development on our shared land, inadequate financial protections to pay for coal mining cleanup, or decommissioning costs for offshore drilling.
These include breeder and thorium reactor technology
development to replace
fossil fueled power, energy storage research, energy efficiency incentives, and careful review of region climate risks (
like coastal flooding) followed by appropriate planing.
Greens often note that the changing global climate will have the greatest impact on the world's poor; they neglect to mention that the poor also have the most to gain from
development fueled by cheap
fossil fuels like coal.