Sentences with phrase «companies know climate»

That's because today, even the most profit - minded companies know climate change is a huge limitation on economic growth.

Pingback: A 1988 Shell Environmental Report Shows the Oil Company Knew Climate Change Was Real and Would Be Devastating Slate

Not exact matches

Everyone knows there's a red - hot war on among U.S. startups to secure the best talent, but new numbers from U.K. startup recruitment event company Silicon Milkroundabout and job search engine Adzuna.co.uk suggest that the British climate for startup hiring has now moved from simmering to boiling as well.

We know these technologies have broad appeal globally as companies and governments address climate resilient growth, strive to drive cleaner and achieve more energy - efficient industry.

Investigative reports revealed Exxon knew about climate change as far back as the 1970s, yet the company's executives chose to embark on a decades - long campaign of deception.

The lead attorney for U.S. manufacturers and oil and gas companies on a climate change lawsuit didn't know the answer to a measurement fact when asked in court two weeks ago, court papers show.

And some believe fossil fuel companies could be legally liable if they knew about climate change dangers but suppressed that information.

The cities allege that, for decades, the companies sold fossil fuels they knew were contributing to climate change, while engaging in a multimillion - dollar campaign to sow doubt about global warming.

When an oil company trumpets the need to tackle climate change, you know that the world has been transformed.

Republican gains in the U.S. Congress suggest climate change and energy will not be addressed in the next two years, and a voluntary national cap - and - trade market for companies, known as the Chicago Climate Exchange, will expire at the end of thiclimate change and energy will not be addressed in the next two years, and a voluntary national cap - and - trade market for companies, known as the Chicago Climate Exchange, will expire at the end of thiClimate Exchange, will expire at the end of this year.

If you can, talk to someone who knows a bit about recruitment, even if you aren't planning to return to their company — they will be able to give you an honest perspective on the current hiring climate.

Willie Soon continues to attend industry - funded climate denier events and detests questions that highlight the dirty energy companies funding his work: watch Dr. Soon shout at a student asking critical questions last April, at events run by the campus arm of CFACT, a well known climate denial organization.

For years, we at Greenpeace have been working to make public the secret paper trails that show what everyone already knows: climate science deniers - #Fakexperts - are few and far between, and most of them are paid by companies most responsible for global warming to downplay the problem.

Exceptional As most people looking at reviews will be company car drivers, things you should know: It accelerates faster than most company cars (8 seconds, quite achievable) It is more economical than most company cars BIK is okay (good CO2 figures, but relatively expensive list) Standard equipment is odd, good specification in some ways, annoying in others (+ = PDC, auto lights / wipers, dual zone climate, iDrive, lowered 10 mm - = worst stereo ever, non-foldable rear seat, no storage, analogue iPod connector, 16 wheels look... well, just look at them) Standard suspension is merely adequate, weight transfer between fast sweeping bends is noticeable No LSD, so doesn't enjoy getting the back end out particularly If it is your own cash, buy a better spec version!

Co-opting what winter - gear manufacturers know about keeping people warm and dry in extreme climates, pet apparel companies are applying similar technology to gear for dogs, while taking into account the physiology of dogs, as well as their comfort, the way they move and the winter activities they are likely to engage in.

«At the core of the plaintiff's lawsuit is the idea that these companies have long known about risks of their products... yet they took a course of action that resisted regulation and sought to keep them on the market as long as possible,» said Burger, the Columbia climate law expert.

And as long as businessmen with a vested interest (Exxon / Mobil, Peabody Coal, power companies), and economists with a political bias (CEI, Heartland, Cato, Wall Street), and lawyers (Bachmann, Cornyn, Cantor) believe that they know more about global warming than climate scientists, nothing will get done to combat global warming.

The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world's climate far earlier than previously known.

Be sure to buy coffee that has been fairly traded (some companies offer carbon - neutral, too), because then you know that the workers are receiving a fair return for their work and are part of an organization that supports them and will help them to implement strategies for climate change resistance.

«There is no doubt there is more interest in Exxon's conduct than ever before,» said the Rev. Michael Crosby, who represents the friars and has called on the company to address climate change for more than a decade.

As early as 1977, investor - owned fossil fuel companies knew their business was risky — that the use of their products released dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane emissions that could destabilize our climate.

We know from our work with business leaders and policymakers that climate action is happening outside of the negotiating room as much as in it, with leading sub-national governments and major companies accelerating the transition to a zero - emissions economy.

If companies or individual building owners are serious about combating climate change and / or reducing carbon emissions then their is NO possible way to continue to use any form of combustion based, fossil fuel, systems of any kind!

These are companies that care deeply about consumer feedback, so when consumers ask them to be leaders on climate solutions, we know they will listen.

I liked what that first link said here: «It helps, too, that shareholders no longer have to prove that climate change matters to each company's bottom line.

While BP is far from a green company and is not even greenwashing itself like it was in the «Beyond Petroleum» days, this reminds some climate policy observers of the late 1990s corporate defections from the Global Climate Coalition, when companies were no longer denying the urgency of climate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that uclimate policy observers of the late 1990s corporate defections from the Global Climate Coalition, when companies were no longer denying the urgency of climate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that uClimate Coalition, when companies were no longer denying the urgency of climate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that uclimate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that urgency.

It would also immunize fossil - fuel companies from lawsuits for damages done by their products — lawsuits such as those bound to arise from the revelations that ExxonMobil and other companies knew for decades about the climate damages their products cause, and lied about it.

The cities say that the oil companies have known about the risks of anthropogenic climate change, but that rather than disclose what they know, the companies engaged in a decades - long campaign to deceive the public that the science is uncertain.

The oil company Exxon knew about climate change's impact in the 1970s, and found out that action would impact their bottom line.

Now we know that Exxon, and other companies like Shell, have been taking actions to protect their infrastructure from climate change for decades — while fighting action to protect the rest of us.

The plaintiffs fault oil and gas companies for knowing about climate change in the mid-20thcentury, accusing them of ignoring the «warnings» and proceeding «to double - down on fossil fuels.»

«There is an incoherence at best between oil companies on the one hand positioning themselves as being on the side of the world's developing countries and while on the other actively pursuing strategies which will entail catastrophic climate change which we already know is having a significant impact on the global south,» she said.

On Wednesday night, the City and County of Santa Cruz, California filed two lawsuits against 29 oil, gas, and coal companies, claiming they knew about climate change and somehow hid it from the public.

What energy companies must do immediately is convey their scientific beliefs and real concerns about climate change risks to Congress and the general public, many of whom do not know what to believe.

According to an article in the Guardian newspaper, published on the 8th of July 2015, ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change — seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists.

They're also committed to responding to their customers - and they know that increasingly, brands will be judged based on the decisions companies make about climate.

But the judge presiding over the suits, William Alsup, wanted to get the science straight first, and he invited the cities and the oil companies to present the history of climate change research and the best available findings in a kind of unusual hearing that he's become known for.

The company has a long record of funding climate denial (which continued under Tillerson) and is under investigation for potentially defrauding investors by failing to tell them that it knew decades ago of the risks climate change posed to the bottom line.

Lawsuits filed by two coastal California counties and a city argue that fossil fuel companies named in the lawsuits knew greenhouse gas emissions had a significant impact on the climate and sea levels and «concealed the dangers.»

As the founder of an organization known as «350.org,» he leads a global network of climate change zealots who believe that persecuting energy companies involved in the production of fossil fuels is necessary to achieve «climate justice.»

Since then, InsideClimate News published an exposé detailing a $ 30 million, multi-decade effort by Exxon Mobil to sow doubt about climate change, despite the company's own internal deliberations about known climate risks associated with fossil fuel use.

Their lawsuits accuse the companies of having known, for nearly five decades, «that greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products had a significant impact on the Earth's climate and sea levels.»

«ExxonMobil, the world's largest and most powerful oil company, knew everything there was to know about climate change by the mid-1980s, and then spent the next few decades systematically funding climate denial and lying about the state of the science.»

It's the first time a federal court has ever put climate science on trial, and skeptics want to dispel the notion we know enough about global warming to hold companies liable for it.

With a decision that could have far - reaching implications, a federal judge in California has ordered the first ever U.S. court hearing on climate science for a «public nuisance» lawsuit, meaning that major oil and gas companies for the first time may have to go on the record regarding what they knew about the planetary impacts of their products — and when.

The groups, ranging from the [Rockefeller Brothers Fund - supported] 350.org, Food and Water Watch, The Nation, Sierra Club and others, have asked DOJ to investigate what ExxonMobil knew about climate change and when the company knew it, juxtaposing that insider knowledge, exposed by both InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times, with the climate change denial campaign it funded both in the past and through to the present.

These companies have known for decades that their products — coal, oil, and natural gas — cause harm, yet even today they continue to fund front groups and trade associations who seek to sow confusion about climate science and block policies designed to reduce the heat - trapping emissions that cause global warming.

Pope Francis knows the political conflicts around climate change in the US are exacerbated in part by the influence and power of many fossil fuel companies and special interest groups.

This 1988 Shell report, discovered by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent, shines light on what the company knew about climate science, its own role in driving global CO2 emissions, the range of potential political and social responses to a warming world.

Yingli Green Energy goes beyond targets for reducing emissions Yingli Green Energy, a leading solar panel manufacturer in the world, known as «Yingli Solar,» today announced that the Company gone beyond its targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the end of 2013 as part of its membership commitments in the WWF Climate Savers program, according to internal inspections... Read More»