Not exact matches
File photo by A.J. Sisco / UPI RICHMOND, Va., Oct. 30 (UPI)-- Industry supporters have started an ad blitz in southern U.S.
states,
arguing offshore
oil and gas exploration can exist side - by - side with the environment.
The former Solicitor General of the United
States under President George W. Bush — for whom he successfully
argued Bush v. Gore — will be talking not gay marriage but class actions and the BP
oil spill settlement.
They might
argue for the strengthening of American hegemony to enforce all these policies, and to make sure that the United
States would control global natural resources, especially
oil.
Over the weekend, Rangel blasted President Obama for his commitment to the war in Iraq,
arguing that his motivation for U.S. involvement in the war matched that of the previous administration - to secure more
oil for the United
States.
The former Lagos
State governor
argued that Jonathan was allegedly responsible for
oil theft and that he should be removed by all Nigerians during presidential election.
Cities in the United
States are taking
oil companies to court,
arguing that they should pay for climate - related problems caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Publicly, most automakers are ducking the issue and emphasizing potential pitfalls of building hybrid cars with plugs, but pressure is mounting behind the scenes to give the idea some life... «Such development should have the highest research and development priority because it promises to revolutionize transportation economics and to have a dramatic effect on the problems caused by
oil dependence,» write George Shultz, former U.S. secretary of
state, and James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in a June position paper on
oil and U.S. national security... They
argue that battery development for plug - in hybrids «should for the time being replace the current research and development emphasis on automotive hydrogen fuel cells.»
In a submission to Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, the Washington - based American Petroleum Institute
argues that the $ 7 - billion (U.S.) pipeline would be a major boost to job creation, and warned that the U.S. can not take for granted its access to the vast
oil sands resource in Canada.
The
oil industry
argues, however, that these matters are best dealt with by the federal government, not by
state courts.
They
argue the
state must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but most of Alaska's earnings depend on
oil production.
For instance, Nixon
states that «it was
argued by some that [methane and carbon dioxide emissions from flaring in Nigerian
oil fields during the 1990s] was the single greatest contributor worldwide to climate change».
In the debate whether America's natural gas boom is doing more harm than good, the panelists
argue whether finding a solution at home liberates the United
States from conflict for
oil in the Middle East.
Wolf campaigned on a platform of instituting a 5 percent extraction tax on
oil and gas drilling in Pennsylvania,
arguing that the money raised — an estimated $ 1 billion annually — would help boost
state education funding.
He has also called for a massive expansion of
oil drilling in the United
States, apparently in an effort to defuse criticism from those who
argue speciously that «drill, baby, drill» is the answer to our growing dependence on foreign
oil.
Considering that the effects of rising carbon emissions will effect more
states than just the one emitting them, I'm not sure how you can
argue that in
state - by -
state regulation is better than a tough national standard, but at least nearly two thirds of
oil execs now believe that there is something to this increasing carbon emissions causing global warming thing.
These incidents,
argues Gustavo Ampugnani, lead energy and climate campaigner for Greenpeace Mexico, foreshadow worsening
oil - and gas - related disasters as the country's massive energy reforms open Mexico's vast fossil fuel reserves up to international companies that are even less regulated and scrutinized than
State - owned Pemex.
Oil States also
argues that since the eighteenth century, actions challenging the validity of issued patents have been decided by courts of law, and thus the patent owner's right to a jury trial is preserved under the Seventh Amendment.