Sentences with phrase «fuel corporations not»

Not exact matches

My sister and I emigrated from Iran back in 1984, and just knowing that in the world there are countries, such as Iran, where women have no rights, and they can't work let alone run a corporation, and certainly aren't treated as equals... this is what fuels us, keeps us passionate and pushes us forward.

However, as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has begun to roll out the option to issue brand new top - level domains for almost any word, whether it's dot - hotel, dot - books or dot - sex — dubbed the «not - coms» — the research suggests there is substantial untapped demand that could fuel additional growth in the domain registrations.

Perhaps that is because genetically modified crops, which boost productivity and lower cost of chemicals and fuel, benefit multinational corporations and farmers, but not consumers themselves.

According to three new reports on «Promoting International Energy Security» issued by the RAND Corporation, because the energy purchases made by the US Department of Defense are not large enough to influence world oil prices — despite DoD requiring considerable amounts of fuel to function — cutting fuel use is the only effective choice... Read more →

The van became an instant hit not only with small business, but also large corporations who saw the Transit Connect as a way to lower their fuel bills for their fleet.

«The Eclipse Concept - E suggests that performance and fuel efficiency need not be mutually exclusive,» said Ulrich Walker, executive vice president of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation.

With Trump and the Republicans running the Government, look for the transition to clean energy and EVs to be delayed as long as they can make it happen and as long as the fossil fuel corporation can bribe them to act in their interests and not the people's best interest.

It's really too bad that you haven't seen fit to give even a fraction of the attention to the very real, very serious question of who broke into the computer system and stole the emails that you have given to legitimizing the baseless, slanderous and inflammatory charges that various fossil fuel corporation stooges made about the emails.

It is not surprising that the eco-pragmatists attract support from conservatives who have doggedly resisted all measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions, defended the interests of fossil fuel corporations, and in some cases worked hard to trash climate science.

What that sciencey - sounding gibberish about «unproved variables» means is that you don't want to see trillions of dollars in wealth shift from the fossil fuel corporations to other sectors of the industrial economy, therefore, anthropogenic global warming can not be true.

Reducing fossil fuel use won't «shrink the economy» — quite the opposite — but it will result in the transfer of trillions of dollars in investments, capital and profits from the fossil fuel corporations to other sectors of the industrial economy.

Anyone who reads the detailed scientific explanation of Mr. Gary Novak (/ / nov55.com/ntyg.html), can easily grasp that human use and abuse of fossil fuels do not have a significant impact on Earth climate; and that implementing the Kyoto Protocol would only harm the health of the economy — not only the profits of big corporations, but also the pockets of all consumers — even the poorest.

The intelligence agencies, military, non fossil fuel corporations, banks, and universities are not interested in arguing this point, because the facts are obvious.

Feeding a country of several hundred million the trillions in $ they require in fuel is not a task for anyone except a large corporation.

Many corporations not directly involved in fossil fuels and timber are ahead of the people and the politicians on these issues.

Doesn't matter how big global estimated potential oil reserves are in total: when an oil company has diminishing access to state - controlled fossil fuels it may be experiencing its own peak - as a corporation.

CNN: The giant corporations powering the fossil fuel industry are warned that they face a damaging backlash if they try to resist the mounting pressures of climate change legislation and high - profile campaigning The financial and economic muscle of the global fossil fuel industry's corporate behemoths will not protect them from the costly effects of negative [continue reading...]

As Matthew Yglesias articulated last year in a thoughtful piece on Slate, divestment by socially responsible investors, universities and even governments won't starve capital flows to fossil fuel corporations anytime soon.

(B) The Corporation is authorized to adjust the assessments on fossil fuel - based electricity to reflect changes in the expected quantities of such electricity from different fuel types, such that the assessments generate not less than $ 1.0 billion and not more than $ 1.1 billion annually.

Fossil fuel corporations know they're not the future, yet they're determined to keep us stuck in the past.

We now know that for a decade the Howard Government's policies have been not so much influenced but actually written by a tiny cabal of powerful fossil fuel lobbyists representing the very corporations whose commercial interests would be affected by any move to reduce Australia's burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

You know, we had oil dependence problems in the»70s, we started the Synfuels Corporation — too expensive, went bankrupt; now people are again concerned about fuel dependence & oil dependence... aren't we kind of just going through the same cycle again?»

Senators Kaine, Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI), and others have banded together to attack the alleged «web of denial» that appears to be made up only of conservative organizations that they claim are funded by ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel corporations that they consider immoral — even though the energy they provide has been indispensable to lifting and keeping billions of people out of poverty, and even though ExxonMobil has not given any of these groups a dime for a decade or more.

Unlike Koch, most of those fortunes did not come from owning a corporation like Koch Industries, historically rooted in fossil fuel operations.

In this case, your unsupported generalization that «the electorate could not care less» about climate change was rebutted with actual opinion polls showing that significant majorities of «the electorate» do, in fact, care a good deal, and consider the issue a priority for the President and the Congress, and support policies to regulate GHG emissions and to hold fossil fuel corporations responsible for the full costs of their products.

Corporations operating under only their fiduciary responsibility might choose to produce more fuel and «take food off the tables of many» whose starvation won't affect their profit.

Yes, the biggest users of all energy, and fossil fuel energy especially, are the global corporations (bigger than nations), and government, and the rest of business... not the residents of either middle - income US suburbs or farming villages and cities in China.

But if anyone could afford to make a bigger and earlier switch to Non-carbon energy use it would be the richest 1 billion people (and the corporations / government they might work for)-- these «wealthier» people also have «the pull» to tell those who they buy stuff from that fossil fuels is not an option in their supply line anymore.

«I do not believe, nor do my colleagues on the Corporation, that university divestment from the fossil fuel industry is warranted or wise.

According to three new reports on «Promoting International Energy Security» issued by the RAND Corporation, because the energy purchases made by the US Department of Defense are not large enough to influence world oil prices — despite DoD requiring considerable amounts of fuel to function — cutting fuel use is the only effective choice... Read more →

Yes, it would certainly be better for corporations like ExxonMobil, which alone makes about ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY IN PROFIT from fossil fuels, if climate scientists who understand that a rapid phaseout of fossil fuel consumption is urgently needed if we are to have any hope of averting the most catastrophic outcomes of AGW, would just stick to the science and keep their mouths shut about that so as not to «spur political action» to save civilization from destruction.

(Of course, it will cause a massive transfer of wealth from the fossil fuel industry to other sectors of the economy, but that's not the same thing as a «massive global Depression», as the fossil fuel corporations would have us believe.)

This fight, to move away from fossil fuels as rapidly as possible, to push fossil fuel companies to either change their polluting ways or eliminate them entirely if they won't, to curtail the deeply damaging influence these powerful corporations, beholden to nothing but their profits, is the fight of our times.

For these reasons, just as screaming fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists is not construed to be a justifiable exercise of free speech, climate change science disinformation can not be justified on free speech grounds and must be understood as the morally indefensible behavior of many fossil fuel companies, some corporations and industry organizations, and free market fundamentalist foundations that have funded the climate change disinformation campaign.