Sentences with phrase «energy over fossil fuels»

Finally, a new Gallup poll highlights Americans» growing enthusiasm for renewable energy: nearly three in four Americans support utilizing clean energy over fossil fuels, including 88 % of Democrats and a majority of Republicans.

EPA created the Clean Power Plan with input from millions of Americans, reflecting a reality where over 70 percent of Americans want the federal government to emphasize clean energy over fossil fuels.

The Trade in Services Agreement (Tisa), being negotiated in secret, could make it harder for governments to favor clean energy over fossil fuels.

Although Pennsylvania voters agree that climate change is causing problems now — and 69 % want the state to prioritize renewable energy over fossil fuels to drive down greenhouse gas emission — legislators haven't updated the state's woefully outdated Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard for fourteen years.

Not exact matches

Such a plan could enable businesses to make their own plans knowing what the relative costs of fossil fuels, solar energy, and human labor are likely to be over time.

«This report shows the government's plans are stacked in favour of nuclear power over renewable energy and are so vague they risk locking the UK into a new generation of polluting fossil fuels,» senior economy campaigner Simon Bullock commented.

The Clean Energy Standard was part of an effort by state regulators to shift the state's reliance from fossil fuels to renewable energy over the next several deEnergy Standard was part of an effort by state regulators to shift the state's reliance from fossil fuels to renewable energy over the next several deenergy over the next several decades.

However, a majority of Americans say they would prefer a focus on alternative energy sources over fossil fuel development.

The EIA says world energy consumption is likely to grow by more than 50 percent over the period 2010 to 2040, with fossil fuels supplying 80 percent of the total, despite a growth in renewables and nuclear power.

Over the past decade and a half, countries around the world have taken unprecedented steps to shift their energy dependence from fossil fuels to alternative resources.

From the Post Carbon Institute comes a quick video of the history of fossil fuels and the growth of the modern economy over the last 300 years: You might also be interested in this recent post: «Energy source transitions over time - what comes next?

Eliminating global energy subsidies could reduce deaths related to fossil - fuel emissions by over 50 percent and fossil - fuel related carbon emissions by over 20 percent.

So, if Inhofe lets money dictate his policies, what does it mean that the top three contributors to his campaign are dirty energy companies (Koch industries being # 1), or that he has taken well over $ 1 million from the fossil fuel industry since 1999?

Despite hand - wringing over coal's demise in the United States, the fossil fuel will still dominate the global energy sector.

«As global energy demand grows over this century, there is an urgent need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions,» said Secretary of Energy Steveenergy demand grows over this century, there is an urgent need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions,» said Secretary of Energy SteveEnergy Steven Chu.

Our societies have evolved over the past 200 years largely dependent on fossil fuel for energy.

Even though the country already generates over 99 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and ran entirely on alternative energy for 250 days in 2016, completely banning fossil fuels across all industries will likely prove difficult.

Feed - in tariffs would also have the effect of lowering the consumer's costs for renewable energy, which would only grow cheaper over time, as more and more manufacturing capacity was built — because under equivalent economies of scale, renewables are definitely cheaper than fossil fuels.

Re # 43, A «collosal political jump forward» would be for the US to strip all subsidies from the fossil fuel industry, and to strip all subsidies from fossil - fuel intensive agricultural industry as well (over $ 35 billion a year), and to deliver those subsidies to solar, wind, and carbon - neutral agricultural industries — as well as instituting a hefty carbon tax on all fossil fuels, and agreeing to strict emissions caps, and mandating energy efficient technology in all areas.

What I find ironic is that it is his can - do optimism that is in this case working against our ability to do something about our dependence on fossil fuels and the climate change that this dependence is resulting in, that is, switching to alternate energy, preserving modern civilization and the world economy beyond Peak Oil and Peak Coal, preventing climate change from becoming such a huge problem that it destroys that the world economy — and more than likely leads to a series of highly destructive wars over limited resources.

In just the past 2 hours, the sun showered more energy on earth than humanity has ever generated by digging up and burning fossil fuels over the past 2000 years.

A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low - impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil - fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.

Renewable energy currently tends to have higher up - front costs than fossil fuel - based power systems do, but in the long run equipment depreciation is lower and the fuel (sunlight and wind) is free, thus any honest cost analysis over the lifetime of the power - generating equipment will conclude that solar is cheapest, wind second, nuclear third, and fossil fuels are unworkable in the long run due to the global warming issue.

Here's something about which I'm sure we can agree: Fossil fuels will naturally over the course of time become more expensive, more so if we don't bring other sources of energy online.

And this will change over time — CO2 emissions should keep getting lower just from reducing fossil fuel usage in proportion to total energy use.

And, that we could use that pile of money to reach geothermal energy to replace fossil - fueled power plants all over the planet.

As news spread over the weekend of the death of George P. Mitchell, the 94 - year - old Texas oil man widely credited with playing a pivotal role in unlocking the shale energy era, I reached out for a reaction from Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer - winning chronicler of humanity's fossil fuel era.

For example, an «energy security fee» of $ 3.50 per barrel of imported oil would raise approximately $ 15 billion annually; reduced fossil fuel subsidies as proposed by the administration could generate upwards of $ 35 billion over ten years; a utilities electricity fee could raise at least $ 2 billion annually, as included in the Kerry - Lieberman American Power Act; and royalties on new offshore continental shelf drilling could raise more than $ 100 billion over twenty years.

Renewable energy sources are replacing fossil fuels now, all over the world, and increasingly are doing so at cost * savings.

The Council of the American Physical Society believes that the use of renewable energy sources, the adoption of new ways of producing and using fossil fuels, increased consideration of safe and cost effective uses of nuclear power, and the introduction of energy - efficient technologies can, over time, promote the United States» energy security and reduce stress on the world's environment.

More broadly, well aware of the strategic importance of secure energy supplies, not to mention being on the front lines of what have been energy wars as much as anything else over the past few decades, the military has been a big supporter of energy not derived from fossil fuels.

This means that such fights, which are at the core of the delays over energy legislation, are a distraction from the simpler process of building the first stages of a sustained energy quest after a long comfortable nap facilitated by cheap abundant fossil fuels for which longer - term and indirect costs are finally being gauged.

, contributed 50 % of the amount of total GHGs / CO2 from using fossil fuels for energy over that same period.

Similarly, we hope you will take steps to transform our energy economy so the otherwise nearly inevitable eventual war with China over fossil fuels can be avoided.

The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry.

And that's just to make the paper; don't forget about the energy inputs — chemical, electrical, and fossil fuel - based — used to transport the raw material, turn the paper into a bag and then transport the finished paper bag all over the world.

Over all, Obama's choices reflect his longstanding pattern of charting a pragmatic path reflecting the need for strong regulation, including of greenhouse gases (embodied in McCarthy), and the simultaneous need to advance responsible use of cleaner fossil fuels while also using policies and investments to advance non-polluting energy technologies for the long haul.

The authors note that as fossil fuel reserves shrink, as air pollution worsens, and as concerns about climate instability cast a shadow over the future of coal, oil, and natural gas, a new world energy economy is emerging.

King said green energy already had advantages over fossil fuel power in cutting deadly air pollution and reducing the carbon emissions that drive global warming.

If we allow fossil fuels and CO2 to be labelled a pollutant with a view to the world's energy supply being taken over and rationed by a «well meaning», self appointed, so called elite then we will deserve what we get.

Most of the global CO2 emissions issue could be solved with low cost nuclear power (low cost nuclear will replace, over the course of this century, fossil fuels for electricity generation which will then displace gas for heating and produce «energy carriers» to replace fossil fuels for transport fuels).

To start, nearly all of the CSLF meeting participants were bullish on the outlook for fossil fuel consumption, expressing the view that fossil use would increase over the next several decades due to a combination of demand factors (e.g. population and economic growth) and supply factors (e.g. lack of cost - competitive renewable energy).

Over the last year, Environmental Progress discovered that major environmental organizations including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) have accepted contributions from, or made investments in, fossil fuel and renewable energy companies.

With global GHG emissions and concentrations continuing to increase; with climate change intensifying changes in ecosystems, ice sheet deterioration, and sea level rise; and with fossil fuels providing more than 80 % of the world's energy, the likelihood seems low that cooperative actions will prevent increasingly disruptive climate change over the next several decades.

That major fossil fuel producers are now following the global trend should be taken as the most emphatic evidence yet that the switch to renewable sources of energy is, over the long term, irreversible.

They choose fossil fuels over renewable energy sources because they are cheaper and tend to think short - term instead of looking ahead.

Morton: Well, you have to remember that over 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels — and the world uses a lot of energy, and will be using even more energy soon.

In addition to the work in the World Energy Outlook, the IEA has provided input to the G - 20 and APEC since 2009, when G20 leaders took a major step toward reforming energy subsidies and committed to «rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption», the IEA has provided input to the G - 20 and APEC in support of their commitEnergy Outlook, the IEA has provided input to the G - 20 and APEC since 2009, when G20 leaders took a major step toward reforming energy subsidies and committed to «rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption», the IEA has provided input to the G - 20 and APEC in support of their commitenergy subsidies and committed to «rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption», the IEA has provided input to the G - 20 and APEC in support of their commitments.

Our mobility, our health and lifestyles, our diet and its variety, our education system, particularly at the higher level, and our high culture would be quite impossible without fossil fuels, which have provided over 90 % of the energy consumed on the earth since 1800.

The Heartland Institute is a fossil fuel - funded front group with over $ 800,000 in contributions from fossil fuel interests that has routinely attacked clean energy policies and the science behind climate change.