Sentences with phrase «about his fossil fuel funding»

Not exact matches

It is often difficult to calculate the precise proportion of fossil fuel investments in complex funds, but about $ 400bn of the $ 5.2 tn total is likely to be in coal, oil and gas.

House Democrats, led by Reps. Ted Lieu of California and Peter Welch of Vermont, also announced Thursday they are planning a broader probe into when other energy companies first understood that fossil fuels drive climate change, what they did with that information and whether they funded or participated in sowing doubt about the matter.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Long Island with reporters on Wednesday said he wanted to back up the rhetoric about renewable energy with a push toward divesting the state's pension fund from fossil fuel companies.

One could frame the debate in the advantages of using less fossil fuel, which range from lower costs to people (an all electric car has operating costs about 1/4 that of a gasoline vehicle), to balance of payments (less capital flowing out of the country, especially relevant to countries who import most of their oil), to terrorism (not funding it, and western influence leaving the ME, which is the basis of most ME terrorist organizations) to conflict in general (most of the major conflicts in the last 30 years have involved ME oil), to finite supply (when we run out, we'll be facing a global economic meltdown).

Vermont's governor and state treasurer have different ideas about the subcommittee being formed to investigate fossil - fuel divestment for the state's $ 4 billion retirement fund.

Since the NYC funds control about $ 175 billion, if they dump fossil fuels and pipelines, it will be a globally - significant victory.

«These documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what many of us have long suspected: That there is a campaign afoot by groups directly funded by the fossil fuel industry and right - wing foundations such as Koch Industries to mislead the public about climate change,» Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann wrote in an email to LiveScience.

Trump also made specific (and ambiguous) promises about energy and climate on his Web site and on the campaign trail, such as canceling funding for the United Nations Green Climate Fund and lifting restrictions on fossil fuel development.

Referring to Gavin Schmidt's «explanations» as helpful and pulling out tired lines about a vast fossil fuel funded conspiracy under the current circumstances tells me that politics are more important to her than the ethics (or lack thereof) involved.

What is more important is that the fossil - fuel industry knew about the danger in the 1970s, perhaps even the 1960s, and what they did about it was to fund a massive campaign of denial.

The general point made when talking about people like Singer and so on is that they recieved major funding from fossil fuel interests — but isn't that also true of the New York Times, and doesn't it raise similar questions about the quality of their coverage?

I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more about hydrogen cars too; the fossil fuel companies might well fund a fake «hydrogen economy» because the cheapest hydrogen is made by steam reforming of natural gas; people think that this is somehow better than just running a car on CNG.

In the briefest of descriptions, Rado claimed the video presented biased information from scientists who were funded by fossil fuel interests, but it turned out he voiced a dislike of the video before viewing it, had a preconceived notion about the funding of skeptic scientists, and failed to disclose precisely who his complaint reviewer William Connolley was.

Fossil fuels aside, GCF - watchers must remain hyper - vigilant about the GCF funding false solutions like so - called climate smart agriculture, biofuels, waste incineration, nuclear energy and big dams.

In March 2017, the fossil - fuel - funded group sent out 25,000 copies of a book called Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming to science teachers nationwide.

USEXIM provided almost $ 6 billion annually to fossil fuel projects around the world between 2013 and 2015 with about 86 percent of the funds going to oil and gas projects.

While the ensuing fame increased demand for Solomon as a speaker and «expert» panelist within the fossil - fuel funded skeptic community, two things jump out as particularly strange about the book.

Recently, a scientist named Jagadish Shukla penned a letter to the White House asking that fossil fuel companies be investigated under anti-racketeering laws for funding disinformation campaigns about global warming (a campaign we know they did and have continued to do).

Your article fails to educate anyone about the fossil fuel industry's lavishly funded PR campaigns in the UK and the US to manufacture doubt about genuine science.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

The Governor's Office also repeats usual lies about the so - called «scientific consensus», «climate science,» and the conspiracy theory about «a well - organized climate change counter-movement,» funded by «companies that make their profits from burning fossil fuels.»

Soon starts out in good spirits, cracking jokes before becoming emphatic and increasingly unhinged about the investigations and requests for emails revealing his fossil fuel funds are terrible.

Currently, some bloggers and mainstream media sources are reviving decade - long questions about the funding of a scientist named Willie Soon, that he received funding from fossil fuel sources.

A group of 17 philanthropic groups including the Wallace Global Fund and John Merck Fund with a combined asset base of about $ 1.8 billion has vowed to divest from fossil - fuel companies and invest in clean - energy technology.

They are the ones who attacked it as a party plank, they are the ones who have been taking millions in fossil fuel money to fund an organized disinformation campaign about it, they are the ones who harass climate scientists.

If the Obama administration is serious about its pledge to end subsidies to fossil fuels, it would use its power as the biggest World Bank funder to stop this loan.»

What you describe is exactly the outcome that Exxon - Mobil and other fossil fuel companies desire, and have achieved by their funding of right - wing propaganda mills, disguised as «think tanks», that spew a steady stream of fake, phony, pseudoscientific bunk and employ cranks and liars to create the completely false impression that there is a genuine «debate» about the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

But it is a simple fact that still today that climate change deniers in Congress receive about four times more fossil fuel industry funding than non-deniers in Congress.

All this wondering about peoples motivations (marxist, socialist, right wing, creationsist, fossil fuel funded (i wish!)

While the leaders of the world talk about what to do at the U.N. and institutions like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund take positive steps to divest from fossil fuels (announced the day after the march), the movement for climate change action will have to grow, learn, and mobilize; and quickly if the 2 degree Celsius temperature increase scientists have warned about is to be averted.

Media pundits, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries raise doubts about the truth of global warming.

A UCS investigation showed that the U.S. news media routinely fail to inform the public about the fossil fuel industry funders behind climate change contrarian think tanks.

«Yet Exxon funded and publicly engaged in a campaign to deceive the American people about the known risks of fossil fuels in causing climate change.

Rich countries and fossil fuel companies should not be as scared as they are about this, Richards advises, adding that airline tax for international flights, aviation and maritime fuel, and high volume financial transactions could all be potential sources of funds, instead of national budgets.

So far, investors have divested about $ 3.4 trillion from the fossil fuel industry, and the total is growing each week, as major investors like the Rockefeller Family Fund divest from Exxon Mobil and other dirty - energy corporations.

about «God Bless Trump»: 25 Years Ago This Man Kick Started the First Fossil Fuel — Funded Campaigns to Attack Climate Science

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.»

By raising questions about his «funding» from «fossil - fuel interests».

Some utilities are making decisive moves away from fossil fuels, and financial giants ranging from Norway's sovereign wealth fund to the Bank of England are hearing murmerings about a potential «carbon bubble».

He's fully aware of the myriad PR campaigns launched by the fossil fuel industry and the organizations and think tanks it funds that routinely seek to sew doubt about climate change in the media.

Meanwhile a housing and financial bubble bursting in China, and the inflationary bubble in the US funded by the magic money of the Fed are both set to burst into undeniable reality any time soon, will at least drive down fossil fuel use during the looming new global recession about to hit from the two biggest economies on the world going someways down the toilet.....

Skeptics don't have to rely on vested fossil fuel interests to do research, nor do fossil fuel interests have to fund their research to learn about alternatives to the consensus position.

And the head of the IPCC has been «fossil fuel funded» forever - here's a half - decade old write up about it.

Just as tobacco and lead companies sowed doubt about the dangers of their products through the use of front groups and third - party experts, so did ExxonMobil — through its funding of a sophisticated network of denialists — work to deceive the public about climate science and the need for political action to end the fossil fuel era.

They claimed that the problem has been that fossil fuel interests have massively outspent underdog environmental groups, funding skeptics to mislead the public and duping the media into giving too much credence to skeptical views about climate change.

At his hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, Pruitt faced a series of questions about his private meetings with major fossil fuel companies while chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association and fundraising for the Rule of Law Defense Fund.