Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel companies still»

And the third issue is that fossil fuel companies still invest, on the order of half a trillion dollars a year in developing new reserves.

Not exact matches

Today the company works with a bio - and fossil - fuel blend, which Shepherd insists is still kinder to the environment than importing salt from overseas.

Still, the voracious energy consumption of Google's data centers makes any attempt to reduce the company's reliance on fossil fuels noteworthy.

Like a world still addicted to fossil fuels, these companies are suffering now.»

While this company's bond did not directly invest in increasing fossil fuel output, refineries are still processing fossil fuels and any investment in making refineries more efficient, as this bond is aiming to, will likely extend plant operating lifetimes and therefore indirectly increase emissions over time.

But most investors and oil companies are betting on business as usual, with Shell still trying to find new fossil fuel reserves.

Other companies such as Samsung and Siemens already offer products to back up grid power, but they are still expensive compared with fossil - fuel storage, and provide cover only for short periods.

The Rainforest Action Network (RAN), a climate advocacy group, said yesterday that Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of the West, through its parent company, BNP Paribas, are each sponsors of this week's Climate Week conference but still finance billions of dollars» worth of fossil fuel projects.

Mainly, the industry's lawyers are likely to argue that fossil fuel companies» past understanding of all this was too imperfect to spur action to protect the climate and is still not absolute.

Audi still builds engines that burn fossil fuel, but the company brings cutting edge engineering to the S7.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

Beginning to use plant - based products will certainly help the company achieve its sustainability goals, though LEGO is just doing their part in a global economy still dominated by fossil fuels — finite resources that are the primary contributor to human - caused climate change.

While over 100 mainstream American companies have fled the controversial organization, a 2017 Annual Meeting registration list shows that ALEC is still chock full of fossil fuel companies.

A significant proportion of fossil fuel projects outside the carbon budget are related to future projects, which companies still have time to cancel — the less that energy transition risks are factored into company planning now, the greater chance of value impacts in the future.

The scientists pointed out that the company still supported, for instance, the American Enterprise Institute, whose fellow, Jonah Goldberg, falsely told Fox News in 2014 that it was «utterly fraudulent» that 97 percent of scientists actively doing research into climate change back the theory that it is driven by human activity, mostly fossil fuel use.

The total value of green bonds worldwide may be valued at $ 900 billion but with banks in the UK alone still making billions of pounds of loans to fossil fuel companies each year ROB MACQUARIE argues it's time for the Bank of England to take an active role in decarbonisation

We saw it with smoking and the tobacco companies, it's still there with evolution and some religious sects, and we're seeing it now with climate change and the fossil fuel industry.

This large carbon reduction is a great step in the right direction and we look forward to continuing such positive communications with the University to further reduce the remaining 60,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases still owned by the University's investments in fossil fuel companies.

Still, the company reports that it will not stop selling fossil fuels in the near future, despite the damage to the environment.

Local activists are making desperate stands to stop new fossil fuel projects, while the giant energy companies are making equally desperate attempts to build while they still can.

We have an agreement between every country in the world to have a dramatic shift away from the use of fossil fuels, and yet still fossil fuel companies dominate our stock exchanges, and on the basis that they're going to utilise all of the assets, all of those oil and gas reserves, which we absolutely can't burn.

The university still has investments in oil and gas company Santos and other fossil fuel firms, noted Louey.

But fossil fuel companies, as well as the automakers, have fought tooth and nail to block cleaner alternatives, so for a long time, Americans — who are still responsible for more carbon emissions per person than anywhere else in the world — didn't have much choice.

Despite the urgent climate crisis, fossil fuel companies and their financiers are still supporting new projects to extract, transport, and...

What's even more mind - boggling about all of this is that despite the realities of how good things have been for fossil fuel companies in recent years, people on the right still claim that President Obama is anti-drilling, anti-oil and totally in - line with the environmentalists.

[10] While many companies appear to believe that climate targets will not be met, we are unaware of any company (save Statoil) that endeavors to incorporate the physical and economic impacts of largely unabated climate change on the macroeconomic forecasts that drive their modeling, though that flows, ipso facto, from the suggestion that the world is likely to use far more fossil fuels than could safely be combusted whilst still achieving those targets.

Yet, it still may be possible for fossil fuel companies to make a transition over the next two decades into energy companies that produce clean, low carbon energy at reasonable cost and reasonable profit.

Some fossil fuel companies continue today to reject the scientific evidence — to insist that the scientific jury is still out — and that their products represent a good solution to the world's energy needs.

But without judging the final outcome of that legal fight, the Supreme Court's decision still gives some idea as to how fossil fuel companies might be sued for climate damages in courts around the world, and those damages orders then enforced in Canada and elsewhere.