Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel money for»

The Republican opposition to this is heavily subsidized by fossil fuel money for campaigns in their various states.

The WWF, therefore, has depended on fossil fuel money for four of the five decades it has been in existence.

Not exact matches

Environmentalists have long scrutinized Exxon Mobil for giving money «to dozens of right - leaning interest groups whose main purpose was to cast doubt on that very science» despite understanding the link between global warming and the burning of fossil fuels as early as the 1970s, according to the New York Times.

Its not just the liberals, prior to their entrance on stage» it was the conservatives taking in this money for fossil fuel approvals.

BC Chamber of Commerce massively promotes and supports these fossil fuel and energy projects, since they believe it enhances «business growth» in BC, and since it appears only money talks in this province, boycotting their membership is a first step in demanding those corporations take an ethical stand for the protection of BC on this matter.

For a fossil fuel - driven vanity project with more money than Scrooge McDuck and ambitions of global domination, Manchester City have got a surprising number of quite likeable footballers.

«Money from megadonors from multibillion dollar fossil fuel industry should be rejected by all Long Island elected officials,» said Diane Goins of Hempstead, chairwoman of the Long Island Chapter of New York Communities for Change, a nonprofit coalition of working families in low and moderate income communities.

«And John Faso took money from fossil fuel companies as they tried to take your land by eminent domain for a fracked gas pipeline.»

Bernie Sanders» campaign thinks Clinton owes the Vermont senator an apology for accusing him of «lying» about how she accepts money from the fossil fuel industry.

If money were the only lure for earth scientists, fossil fuels might be the only fluids in town.

Ending fossil fuel subsidies would free up scarce public money for priorities like education, healthcare, and clean energy.

A study published today, by a group led by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), indicates that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could curb global greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 5 % through 2030 while saving hundreds of billions of dollars in public money.

What we know from reading the actual findings of this study, as well as several other analyses of the climate impacts of fossil fuel subsidy removal, is that nixing oil, gas, and coal subsidies would be a big win for the climate, would saves money, and could free up resources to help the poorest and most vulnerable.

I think there would be a lot to be said for producing a complimentary package that for starters explains where money for science comes from and how many scientists work for fossil fuel and smokestack industries whereas a paid climatologist of any description is a rare bird indeed.

Dr. Depledge described signs of a shift in the oil kingdom's stance, including its endorsement of science pointing to big impacts from a building human influence on climate and commitment of money to pursue technologies for capturing carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other new energy options.

[AR: I keep hearing, again and again, that China simply will not budge from its growth, coal, and emissions trajectories without help — meaning money — from countries, like the United States, that have built their own economies on fossil fuels for a century or two.

Given our current and future need for fossil fuels, there's plenty of money for suppliers.

While climate science promotes the narrative of cooperation for stopping the use of fossil fuels, one just need to look to how much money is spent in national defence budgets to see that the world is still fiercely competing to control the remaining economically viable resources of fossil fuels.

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.

Recently, there has been a renewed focus on how much money Willie Soon has taken from fossil fuel companies for his «research» (over a $ 1 million dollars).

There has been no shortage of public support for unfreezing Ohio's clean energy standards, but behind the scenes, fossil fuel and utility interests have been using money to influence the debate in Columbus.

The family business is lobbying for the gas interests, maybe they even get money from foreign fossil fuel interests for professional services.

For years, environmentalists have been attacking Soon for taking money from energy companies with fossil fuel interests, the only update the Times story added was that Soon allegedly did not disclose this to academic journals he was being published For years, environmentalists have been attacking Soon for taking money from energy companies with fossil fuel interests, the only update the Times story added was that Soon allegedly did not disclose this to academic journals he was being published for taking money from energy companies with fossil fuel interests, the only update the Times story added was that Soon allegedly did not disclose this to academic journals he was being published in.

«While Americans have rallied in support of clean renewable energy at home, the U.S. Export - Import Bank has made it a priority to handout money to fossil fuel companies to work on projects abroad,» said Kate DeAngelis of Friends of the Earth U.S. «If Trump gets his way, U.S. Export - Import Bank will become a slush fund for Big Oil's plans to accelerate climate change.

However, I want it to be clear that, although I - 732 is the closest proposed law to a simple honest carbon fee and dividend, a good example for other states and nations of a nearly revenue - neutral rising carbon fee, the national fee - and - dividend should be simpler, with 100 % of the money collected from the fossil fuel industry distributed uniformly to the public.

Interestingly, the landmark international accord draws a big fat highlight (and maybe a circle and some stars in the margin) across the work that activists and leaders are doing in the Pacific Northwest: not just the work to keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay for their pollution, but also our work to reduce the influence of money in politics and reform broken North American democratic institutions.

«A group of financial experts has set out its vision for hardwiring sustainability goals into the European Union's financial system, calling on the 28 - country bloc to stop pouring public money into polluting fossil fuels and focus spending on clean energies instead.

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.

I propose we begin implementing the viable technologies now, transfer some of the money that is being used to subsidize fossil fuel consumption into research for more technology, and begin the process of weaning our economy now while we still have oil reserves left.

Considering that at least 43 % of the letter's signatories have received money from the fossil fuel industry, being given large sums of money just for being climate «skeptics» and publishing error - riddled nonsense like this op - ed, the sheer nerve it must have taken to make this «follow the money» argument is astounding.

Milloy, who actually calls himself the «junk man» with no apparent sense of irony, is a denier - for - hire who happily takes money from tobacco interests, chemical interests and of course fossil fuel interests to do their dirty work, attacking seemingly any scientist whose findings threaten their financial bottom line.

Why is taking fossil fuel money wrong for sceptics when these climate change bodies take it?

I found that the amount of money available in the fossil fuel - related industries (coal, oil, and natural gas production, transportation, and immediate consumption) exceeded the money available for academic and government - funded climate research by approximately 2,500 times.

I did a study on the money involved in climate science vs. the money involved in fossil fuel related industries and found that any money - motivated scientist was better off working for industry than laboring away as a government or academic scientist.

Carbon taxes in Denmark are used to push industry away from fossil fuels while pulling companies toward renewables, and the money is invested to make it easy - and affordable - for industry to switch to low - carbon technologies.

In addition to accepting fossil fuel propaganda money alongside Mr. Wojick at the Greening Earth Society, Craig Idso also consults for the Heartland Institute.

They're currently taking the tire - iron to Willie Soon for taking money from fossil - fuel corporations.

ENTSOG has systematically exaggerated gas demand, and has convinced the European Union to pump money into unnecessary gas projects — locking Europe in to destructive fossil fuel use for decades.»

You mean, like the head of the IPCC took money from a fossil - fuel corp for the sex - book launch that emboldened him to try out his character's best lines on real - life gals?

So, if none of those deliver (pardon the pun) evidence clearly showing how skeptic climate scientists agreed to accept illicit money in exchange for spreading lies that meet the approval of fossil fuel industry executives, what do we have left?

The problem is when fossil fuel industries funnel money to the policymakers themselves and the thinktanks that provide them with information, which is for the purpose of favoring those industries when policies are made or blocked, especially if built on the dubious scientific standards of their thinktanks.

They know they're still fooling — or at least giving mutual cover for — enough of their Neanderthal supporters that they can keep giving money and cover to the fossil fuel magnates who own them.

A lot of smart money has already figured out we need to develop substitutes for fossil fuels.

Taylor dismissed the idea that his group pushed for the measure because it has accepted money from fossil - fuel firms: «The people who are saying that are trying to take attention away from the real issue — that alternative energy, renewable energy, is more expensive than conventional energy.»

Front page stories at The New York Times and The Washington Post have also highlighted Steyer's past investments in the fossil fuel industry and the profits accrued by the hedge fund he used to lead, noting the apparent inconsistency with his political advocacy.16, 17 Bill McKibben who helped inspire Steyer's opposition to the Keystone pipeline and who consults with the billionaire activist, offers an opposing perspective: «After years of watching rich people manipulate and wreck our political system for selfish personal interests, it's great to watch a rich person use his money and his talents in the public interest.»

While the institute rejects claims it is a front group, one of its senior fellows, coal industry veteran Fred Palmer, told DeSmog in February 2017 that he was «reaching out to the fossil fuel community right now and raising money for Heartland.»

Last year, more than twice as much money was put into new capacity for renewables such as solar and wind power than into new power stations burning fossil fuels, according to a new analysis by the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management.

«This rollback will mean more asthma and other breathing disorders associated with air pollution, more contamination of water supplies by residue from mining fossil fuels and more money wasted on infrastructure for a dying energy industry,» Francis said.

We see that Cuccinelli is taking the money from the fossil fuel companies in exchange for persecuting Dr. Michael Mann.

Because fossil fuel companies have made huge sums of money for so long, they have the political clout to keep politicians saying yes.