Sentences with phrase «against fossil fuels as»

Not exact matches

As much as his approach puts him at odds with conventional economic wisdom, Keller can also seem at odds with himself — a registered Republican who calls for more regulation of industry; a plastics maker who speaks out against U.S. reliance on fossil fuels; a nonunion employer whose wages and benefits are a model for the regioAs much as his approach puts him at odds with conventional economic wisdom, Keller can also seem at odds with himself — a registered Republican who calls for more regulation of industry; a plastics maker who speaks out against U.S. reliance on fossil fuels; a nonunion employer whose wages and benefits are a model for the regioas his approach puts him at odds with conventional economic wisdom, Keller can also seem at odds with himself — a registered Republican who calls for more regulation of industry; a plastics maker who speaks out against U.S. reliance on fossil fuels; a nonunion employer whose wages and benefits are a model for the region.

Fund managers are worried that some oil fields could become worthless as governments try to reduce fossil - fuel consumption to fight against climate change.

New York City announced it filed a multibillion dollar lawsuit against five top oil companies, citing their «contributions to global warming,» as it said it would divest fossil fuel investments from its $ 189 billion public pension funds over the next five years.

After winning a fracking ban, one of the most significant strikes against fossil fuel usage in the nation, New York's environmental groups are eager to score another victory such as a rejection of proposed natural gas pipelines by the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

And ozone, which forms a beneficial shield against ultraviolet radiation when high in the stratosphere, is an efficient greenhouse gas when it appears at airliner altitudes — as it increasingly does, since it too is a by - product of fossil fuel burning.

Gelbspan condemns corporate indifference to climate change as «a crime against humanity» and indicts the Bush administration for allowing the fossil - fuel lobby to dictate national energy policy.

The environmental impacts of alternative energy need to be balanced against the impacts of the energy they replace, such as fossil fuels driving global climate change, Schimel said.

The researchers incorporated information on soot produced by burning fossil fuels, wood and other biofuels, along with that naturally produced by forest fires and then checked their model predictions against global measurements of soot levels in polar snow from Sweden to Alaska to Russia and in Antarctica as well as in nonpolar areas such as the Tibetan Plateau.

He represented WFA on the board of directors of the National Mining Association where he served as chair of the Legal Affairs Committee, a position where he fought against limits in fossil fuel use in the U.S..

The evidence is in his choice of a Vice President and in his refusal as a Senator to act against the interests of the fossil fuel companies.

It seems to me that the most likely explanation for the NYT «correction» was that the paper's editors were worried about creating a legal basis for global - warming lawsuits against fossil fuel interests, as «prior knowledge of harm caused» played a central role in the tobacco lawsuits — and the head of the American Petroleum Institute PR push is Edelman, previously of «second - hand tobacco smoke is not a problem» fame.

As long as fossil fuels wind up being abandoned, it doesn't matter how it happens, and it's probably more effective to use humor and economics against the pro-fossil-fuel crowd (oil & coal industriesAs long as fossil fuels wind up being abandoned, it doesn't matter how it happens, and it's probably more effective to use humor and economics against the pro-fossil-fuel crowd (oil & coal industriesas fossil fuels wind up being abandoned, it doesn't matter how it happens, and it's probably more effective to use humor and economics against the pro-fossil-fuel crowd (oil & coal industries).

As I wrote when I last cited this, «The only change I'd suggest is to drop the words «by industry,» given that everyone in societies thriving on fossil fuels has harvested the present benefits while largely discounting, so far, the need to invest against long - term risks from the resulting buildup of greenhouse gases.

Since all of us are in some way the beneficiaries of cheap fossil fuel, tackling climate change has been like trying to build a movement against yourself — it's as if the gay - rights movement had to be constructed entirely from evangelical preachers, or the abolition movement from slaveholders.

Justin Gillis has written a news article putting the paper in context with other recent research on Antarctic dynamics and sea level, as well as with policy debates about the current value of fossil fuels against the momentous costs that could attend greatly expanded use:

The «moral hazard» argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a «Trojan horse» that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect of cost - effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point in the future we'll have the CDR techniques to remove these present - day emissions).

Consider the costs, difficulty and political issues surrounding excavating fossil fuel, as well as the risks to life and property against that as well.

It is noteworthy that in the recent campaign of libels against him there has not been, as far as I know, a single suggestion that any particular result or conclusion was reached in part or in whole because either that particular research project or his scientific work in general was funded by fossil - fuel interests.

Low fossil fuel prices tend to hurt the economic viability of low - carbon energy alternatives, and thus are generally regarded as a negative development in the fight against climate change.

Without these examples however, efforts to progress will continue to struggle against opposition pointing to decades of fossil fuel - driven growth as the only real option.

If we see a renewable energy market isn't performing as we want it to, we'll try to jump in with campaigns — against fossil and nuclear fuels and in favor of renewables.

Meanwhile, environmental groups see carbon capture as an industry figleaf to shield the EPA from pushback against its climate rules that will still allow the use of fossil fuels, albeit with lower emissions.

And that enviro - activists» collective accusation against skeptic climate scientists might backfire under tough scrutiny, potentially exposing them — Shabecoff, Gelbspan, Naomi Oreskes, «Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action,» and Al Gore — as people engaging in the kind of racketeering action they claim is being done by the fossil fuel companies?

As another MSNBC commentator, Chris Hayes, points out, the stance of Obama and others, that they are against global warming but for the building of new pipelines, are the protestations of fossil fuel addicts, who haven't yet confronted their addiction.

After documenting the largely successful efforts of companies like ExxonMobil to paralyze the policy process, confuse the American people and cynically ««reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,»» as one strategy paper put it, he concludes that «what began as a normal business response by the fossil fuel lobby — denial and delay — has now attained the status of a crime against humanity.»

The article ends: «We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half - century... if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long - term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth's reserves of fossil fuels».

It is currently bragging about being a major architect and proponent of using the federal RICO Act against executives at fossil fuel companies and nonprofit think tanks, such as The Heartland Institute.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Religious leaders called on faith communities to take concrete action against the fossil fuel industry through divestment, as a way to «put the money where our mouth is.»

One of the most frequent arguments against sustainable investing is that it won't yield as much money as investing in fossil fuel assets, high - carbon companies or weapons manufacturers.

Less a new assault inspired by the Republican - led backlash against green energy under way in Washington, D.C., it's the continuation of campaigns by conservative groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, Americans for Prosperity and the Heartland Institute with ties to the fossil fuel billionaires, the Koch brothers.

Others challenge government authorizations of fossil fuel development, such as a claim against the Norwegian government's approval of oil drilling and a South African NGO's recent successful challenge to the approval of a coal - fired power station.

UCS is a sponsor of the campaign to use the federal RICO Act against fossil fuels companies and non-profit climate realist think tanks such as The Heartland Institute.

As a first step, we should dismantle the web of policies that overwhelmingly favors fossil - fuel production and use and actively discriminates against new technologies and practices that would reduce harmful emissions... The second step is to institute federal, state, and local policies that reverse the disincentives created by the existing policy structure and force users to pay the costs of extracting, transporting, and burning fossil fuels.

The C13 / 12 ratios are a good argument against the increase coming from volcanoes but it seems to me that any biological source or sink is likely to have the same ratio as fossil fuels.

In recent years, Hansen has focused his attention on legal battles involving climate issues, such as suits against fossil fuel developments and defending activists arrested while protesting fossil fuel facilities.

After trying to spin his lack of expertise as full credentials, Taylor invokes the long - debunked «Oregon Petition» as supposed proof against climate change, despite the petition's inception as a tactic of the fossil fuel industry, its lack of climate experts as signatories, and its inclusion of fictitious characters like the Spice Girls.

The few relatively minor problems that wind farms cause should be balanced against the huge problems that will arise if we do not replace fossil fuel use with renewable energy such as wind power.

In a speech in New Delhi last week, Obama said the world does not «stand a chance against climate change» unless developing countries such as India reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

The article is published as part of the newspaper's Keep it in the Ground campaign against fossil fuel companies, encouraging big capital investors to move their interests out of brown energy — «divestment».

As soon as they see evidence against their client — the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business - as - usual — they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jurAs soon as they see evidence against their client — the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business - as - usual — they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and juras they see evidence against their client — the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business - as - usual — they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and juras - usual — they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury.

The Mayor also announced that the City has filed a lawsuit against the five largest investor - owned fossil fuel companies as measured by their contributions to global warming.

We can only build a coalition with the power to curb climate disruption if environmentalists are fighting for economic and racial justice as hard as they are against fossil fuels, and if unions are fighting as hard for an immediate transition to a worker - friendly clean energy economy as they are to protect their members.

We are up against the world's largest corporations, who are attempting to extract, transport and burn fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, all as the climate crisis spins out of control.

There is a rebellious spirit sweeping the U.S.A. as people are fighting back against the fossil fuel industry from coast to coast.

Putting Forth Solutions is Important If you are «for» clean energy, then you are automatically aligning yourself «against» fossil fuels and business - as - usual.

And as I've noted on several times, Ozone Action and Ross Gelbspan sure appear to be the epicenter of the fossil fuel industry corruption accusation against skeptic climate scientists.

James Hansen, the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies who first warned the world about the dangers of climate change in the 1980s, has joined other scientists in submitting statements to be considered by a judge at the Information Rights Tribunal on Friday... James Hansen told the Guardian: «Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature... If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies.»»

This ground - breaking research will likely be used in any climate lawsuits brought against fossil fuel companies, as well as in other types of legal proceedings — as the Human Rights Complaint demonstrates.

In May 2016, as part of a worldwide outcry against fossil fuel expansion, citizens from across Europe gathered in the Welsh countryside and closed down the coal company's existing coal mine for 24 hours.