Sentences with phrase «demand for fossil fuels does»

«GDP goes up because the fee and dividend provides a boost to consumer spending, reducing demand for fossil fuels does not have a significant impact on American employment and reduces energy imports from abroad, and the border adjustment means American firms are on a level playing field when it comes to competing on the world market.»

Not exact matches

Walter sees the benefits of using methane as an energy source as twofold: «Not only does it prevent a potent greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere by converting it to weaker greenhouse gases — water vapor and carbon dioxide — but using it on - site would also reduce the demand for other fossil - fuel sources.»

But doesn't a forecast tripling of demand for fossil fuels give any of that group pause?

There are many things that «average citizens» can do to reduce our demand for fossil fuels — most of which will also save us money and improve our health and quality of life.

The goal of climate policy should be to reduce demand for fossil fuels and if we do that the oil sands will become superfluous.

Furthermore, if you are talking about a 70 % reduction in CO2 emissions over 1990 levels (a reasonable target, but I do look forward to seeing the new IPCC outcomes for different emissions scenarios) then you can still use fossil fuels to meet that 30 % demand.

The United States faces a vexing challenge in switching from conventional to clean sources to generate electricity: How do we replace fossil fuel when natural gas costs $ 4 per million BTU and demand for electricity is expected to increase by over 20 % by 2035?

Attributing allegedly unnatural warming to the use of fossil fuels to obtain energy essential for human flourishing, these voices demand that people surrender their God - given dominium, even if doing so means remaining in or returning to poverty.

Speaking at the annual CERAWeek energy conference in Houston on March 9, van Beurden described the growing tensions between his industry, which has created our fossil fuel dependent energy system, and the public, which is demanding a switch to clean energy: «I do think trust has been eroded to the point where it starts to become a serious issue for our long - term future.»

Their letter was the latest sign environmental concerns that were once peripheral for many investors have become mainstream, with some of the most traditional shareholder groups demanding fossil fuel companies in general, and Exxon in particular, do more in response to climate change.

Shareholders have filed resolutions asking for ExxonMobil, Chevron and other US energy companies to undertake stress tests to ensure they maximise value and don't just pursue a BAU strategy in the face of stronger regulation and weakening fossil fuel demand as economies transition.

Wary of how public concern over climate change could drop demand for fossil fuel products, the Kochs have spent the last 15 years dumping over $ 61 million to front groups telling us that global warming doesn't exist, or that it would destroy our economy to stop runaway climate change.

These scenarios do not reflect the huge potential for reducing fossil fuel demand in accordance with decarbonisation pathways.

No, Africa does not need fossil fuels to meet its growing demand for energy.

They certainly don't want the demand for their products — and consequently their profits — to be reduced by a large - scale, rapid move away from burning fossil fuels and towards climate - friendly renewables like wind and solar generated electricity.

I'm not claiming to be a paragon of virtue, merely pointing out that there is a whole lot that individuals can do to reduce their own demand for fossil fuels, besides, as you suggest, «nothing».

Neither does it follow — as the fossil fuel interests would have us believe — that reducing the demand for energy requires reducing the demand for the goods and services that energy provides.

It does not, however, follow — as the fossil fuel interests would have us believe — that reducing the demand for fossil fuels requires reducing the demand for «energy».

However, as clean energy growth rates take off and demand growth for fossil fuels flatlines, it is probable that divesting fossil fuels in favour of a clean energy future does not have to come at a sacrifice to long - term investment returns.