Sentences with phrase «bad energy policy»

(Though please, let's not pretend both parties are equally guilty of bad energy policy.)

«Campaign Cash for Bad Energy Policy?»

Jim Robo, chief executive of NextEra Energy, North America's largest wind developer, recently called offshore wind «bad energy policy» and «bad business».

The ordinary Ghanaian has to bear the prices or the cost of our bad energy policy, so, we are telling them you have to pay more for your electricity, for your water.

That leads to bad energy policies.

Not exact matches

While McClendon's own life was cut short, he left a legacy that will shape American energy policy — for better or for worse — for years to come.

On the Energy Collective blog, Jim Baird notes the «painful» irony that under Clark, British Columbia has pursued policies likely to invite even worse fire calamities in the future.

In short, bad policy could mildly slow coal's decline, good policy could radically accelerate it, but no policy could stop or reverse it, short of nationalizing the energy sector.

Energy Minister Rene Jean - Jumeau says his country badly needs a clear energy policy to drive private investment but acknowledges that bureaucratic inertia and uninterest seem to be winning thEnergy Minister Rene Jean - Jumeau says his country badly needs a clear energy policy to drive private investment but acknowledges that bureaucratic inertia and uninterest seem to be winning thenergy policy to drive private investment but acknowledges that bureaucratic inertia and uninterest seem to be winning the day.

For one thing, there is the baggage associated with the National Energy Program backed by his father decades ago that taxed oil and created a lot of bad blood with Alberta, said Barry Rabe, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan and Wilson Center policy scholar.

Although I reluctantly agree with the editors that mandatory GMO labeling is bad policy, I'm certain that fighting disclosure is not where the scientific community should be putting its energy — especially because it's very likely that North America will soon be swamped by the pro-labeling tide that has already swept across Europe, Asia and much of the rest of the world.

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.

Lomborg claims in his rebuttal that «Holdren could find little but a badly translated word and a necessary specification for nuclear energy production in this chapter».8 Actually, as my original critique indicated to the extent practical in the space available, and as Lomborgs rebuttal and this response make even plainer, his energy chapter is so permeated with misunderstandings, misreadings, misrepresentations, and blunders of other sorts that it can not be considered a positive contribution to public or policy - maker understanding, notwithstanding its managing to get right a few (already well known) truths about the subject.

My view is that ultimately it's a waste of mental energy, since we've already got enough certainty to know that it's a good idea to take out an insurance policy against the worst - case scenario — and by the time you've got the hindsight to have «no error bars,» it's already too late to do anything about GHGs:

Of all the dirty energy money that's coming into Washington, trying to influence policies, Koch is the worst...

A discussion of renewable energy seems to addle the brains of many sensible people, leading them to propose policies that are bad engineering and science or have a foundation -LSB-...]

As the World Energy Investment Outlook notes, it is only with «consistent and credible policies» that we can close the growing gap between energy investment today, and the investment required to meet growing energy demands while avoiding the worst impacts of climate cEnergy Investment Outlook notes, it is only with «consistent and credible policies» that we can close the growing gap between energy investment today, and the investment required to meet growing energy demands while avoiding the worst impacts of climate cenergy investment today, and the investment required to meet growing energy demands while avoiding the worst impacts of climate cenergy demands while avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

And worse still they continually argue for irrational policies — like government imposed carbon pricing schemes and very high cost renewable energy while blocking nuclear power development.

The saddest result of policies based on bad science to achieve environmental dreams of a fossil fuel free world is the effects of high energy costs that inevitably follows on the poor and middle class families.

And it was recognized those actions were a crap shoot (Where good science and policy goes bad: de-salinization plants in Oz rather than managing episodic flooding, drilling 20,000 ′ below a seafloor 5,000 ′ under a precious biosphere to seek oil that is abundantl available on dry land, for examples), but can anyone name a project of doubt on the scale of this one where unspeakable trillions are to be spent, redistributed, productivity disincentized, where people's lives across the world will be thrown into uncertainty, where this trans - generational mindset will, by design, crush the willful and spirited energy and creativity of human kind until it is finally overthrown democratically or otherwise?

A discussion of renewable energy seems to addle the brains of many sensible people, leading them to propose policies that are bad engineering and science or have a foundation in yearning for utopia.

(maybe most of you are too cool to remember that sort of moment... but think of something equally bad like the time you accidentally set something on fire and it started getting out of control...) I think it will be worse than that... Seems like to me we need to be much, much, more certain before we go making policy all over the earth that could actually harm us... or maybe not quite so bad, but really not desirable, harm many developing countries and distract them from addressing real environmental land use and energy production problems that would actually help the environment and save human lives now, today... but keep an eye on the future... not suggesting head in the sand stuff... just let's stop the panic... if you have to panic it's probly too late... most people don't behave terribly rationally while panicing...

Previous reports from Media Matters also told us that media outlets were far more likely to host anti-environmental guests, and worse, dirty energy industry insiders, when discussing energy policy and climate change.

«EPA's proposal for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from about half the nation's electric power supply is a poorly disguised cap - and - tax scheme that represents energy and economic policy at its worst,» Hal Quinn, president of the National Mining Association said in a statement.

Even companies that are sticking with ALEC appear to be embarrassed by the association: Duke Energy has done all it can to not confirm renewed ALEC membership, ignoring repeated calls, emails and a 150,000 - strong public petition delivered by a diverse coalition of organizations whose members don't appreciate how ALEC's bad policies make Duke appear two - faced.

The stark difference between production on federal land and state and private land is not just due to ineffective and inefficient national energy policy; it's also bad federal fiscal policy.

Trump's administration can lead USA, EU, UK and other high income countries to recognise how bad the climate and renewable energy policies have been.

Anonymous, I agree about corn ethanol being a pretty bad energy or environmental policy.

It's fact that we've made bad policy decisions in the past to pull the plug on pursuit of renewable alternatives, and it's fact that we've made bad policy decisions in the past to subsidize non-renewable energy at the expense of alternatives.

In a stunning commentary published yesterday by the Council for Clean and Reliable Energy, energy policy consultant Marc Brouilette says that Ontario's wind power program is an expensive adventure that does not achieve any of its goals for the environment or economic prosperity, and is in fact, making things Energy, energy policy consultant Marc Brouilette says that Ontario's wind power program is an expensive adventure that does not achieve any of its goals for the environment or economic prosperity, and is in fact, making things energy policy consultant Marc Brouilette says that Ontario's wind power program is an expensive adventure that does not achieve any of its goals for the environment or economic prosperity, and is in fact, making things worse.

Even worse, his policies are actively killing jobs and preventing job creation: in the oil patch, coal country, and hundreds of industries whose survival depends on reliable, affordable energy.

Our priorities, just as we've seen with natural gas, are clearly misplaced: a coalition of green groups called b.s. on the president's policy last January, arguing it undermines the progress that's been made so far and that it keeps us from prioritizing the real clean energy solutions that are badly needed.

«It's bad enough that ExxonMobil controls White House energy and climate policies,» said Daniel Lashof, science director of the NRDC Climate Center.

The six politicians who earned top honors as the «worst of the worst» in supporting policies that keep energy prices high and disproportionately hurt low - income families are these: Joker: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Joker: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Ace of Spades: U.S. Senator Dick Durbin Ace of Diamonds: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer Ace of Clubs: U.S. Rep. George Miller (D - CA) Ace of Hearts: U.S. Rep. Ed Markey (D - MA) http://www.stopwaronpoor.org/

Bad policies: • Penalty schemes • Targets and timetables • More regulations • Taxes, penalties and restrictive trade policies • Carbon pricing • Renewable energy • Aid / bribes

Problems are often associated with bad policy decisions continued dirty energy usage / generation and some mandatory actions need to be made, i.e. Carbon fee and dividend or more and bigger renewable energy projects.

clean energy innovation improving consumer choice and affordability more efficient use of energy deeper penetration of renewable energy resources wider deployment of «distributed» energy resources micro grids roof - top solar on - site power supplies and storage promote markets advanced energy management enhance demand elasticity and efficiencies empower customers more choice 50 % of its electricity from renewable resources by 2030 business as usual bad public policy clean energy's economic and environmental potential the power industry was headed for trouble rising utility bills growing customer dissatisfaction socially unjust clean energy economy haves - and - have - nots change in culture business model for the whole system moves the electric industry away from a monopoly, top - down and incentive driven system governed by the market emphasizes distributed energy a distributed system platform market exchange microgrids solar energy efficiency distributed energy resources compete to serve the grid pro-consumer pro-innovation markets - based more affordable resilient capital efficiencies encouraging more distributed energy demand response energy efficiency

To move at the pace and scale required to prevent the worst impacts of global warming we need policies that make clean energy products and services a superior business proposition.

But a useful generalization is that a major effect of most climate policies is to raise energy costs, which tends to be good news for producers of energy - consuming durable goods (for example, the Boeing Company) and bad news for consumers of those same energy - consuming durable goods (for example, United Airlines).

The German Federal Constitutional Court has declared the nuclear fuel tax unconstitutional this week, which is bad news for the German treasury and the government's nuclear energy policy.