I don't think it's too big a leap to associate that with the growth in power of the religious right when it comes to topics like evolution and with fossil
fuel funding when it comes to climate change.
Not exact matches
But
funding an annuity with a portion of your assets can help
fuel a lifetime of monthly checks that —
when paired with other income and investments — forms a powerful three - pronged solution.
The Golden Age for Entrepreneurs and VC's The two decades from 1979
when pension
funds fueled the expansion of venture capital to 2000
when the dot - com bubble burst were the Golden Age for entrepreneurs and venture capital firms.
House Democrats, led by Reps. Ted Lieu of California and Peter Welch of Vermont, also announced Thursday they are planning a broader probe into
when other energy companies first understood that fossil
fuels drive climate change, what they did with that information and whether they
funded or participated in sowing doubt about the matter.
When we post about a new
Fuel Up to Play 60
funding opportunities, our readers take notice; these are among our most read, most shared, and most - Tweeted posts here at Beyond Breakfast.
The measure would require the pension
fund to stop investing in the world's top 200 fossil
fuel companies in the next five years, and divest from coal companies within one year from
when the law is passed.
Background on the Warm Front and the successor scheme: Since 2000,
when the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme was re-branded as Warm Front, with substantial additional
funding and the introduction of heating measures to supplement insulation works, the scheme has formed a major element in
fuel poverty policy.
One could frame the debate in the advantages of using less fossil
fuel, which range from lower costs to people (an all electric car has operating costs about 1/4 that of a gasoline vehicle), to balance of payments (less capital flowing out of the country, especially relevant to countries who import most of their oil), to terrorism (not
funding it, and western influence leaving the ME, which is the basis of most ME terrorist organizations) to conflict in general (most of the major conflicts in the last 30 years have involved ME oil), to finite supply (
when we run out, we'll be facing a global economic meltdown).
ALBANY — State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli cautioned again this week that the financial interests of the state pension
fund must be weighed
when considering divestment from fossil
fuels.
The political damage from George Osborne's U-turn on plans to increase
fuel duty deepened on Tuesday night
when he was accused of leaving one of his junior ministers to carry the can during an interview in which she struggled to explain how the freeze would be
funded.
Back in 2009 and 2010,
when the Common Core was adopted by a host of states ready to promise pretty much anything in exchange for Race to the Top
funds, it was
fueled by twin promises: It would «raise standards» and it would make it easier to compare how schools and states were faring in reading and math.
But what is so interesting about this issue is that the Connecticut Post and the Democratic legislators who are being so articulate and outspoken in their opposition to the proposed federal cut to low income
fuel assistance were silent when, back in May, Governor Malloy announced that his Plan B budget would eliminate funding for Connecticut's Operation Fuel heating assistance prog
fuel assistance were silent
when, back in May, Governor Malloy announced that his Plan B budget would eliminate
funding for Connecticut's Operation
Fuel heating assistance prog
Fuel heating assistance program.
Set a budget in advance, and a handy
fuel gauge icon will show you
when your
funds dry up.
When we talk about investment products, we often mean stocks, options and mutual
funds, which many people consider use to
fuel their longer term goals.
94 Secular said, «So, for the fossil
fuel corporations who
funded the AGW denial propaganda campaign, the question would be «What did they know, and
when did they know it?
The general point made
when talking about people like Singer and so on is that they recieved major
funding from fossil
fuel interests — but isn't that also true of the New York Times, and doesn't it raise similar questions about the quality of their coverage?
I find it interesting that a particular organization might be indicted for supposedly being
funded by the fossil
fuel industry
when so many organizations and studies
fueling the global warming alarmism are
funded by governments and not suprisingly endorse MORE government (in the form of regulations, regulatory agencies, taxes, fees, etc...) as a supposed «solution» to the problem.
In 1996,
when the IPCC released its second assessment report, stating that the human impact on climate was «discernible», a fossil -
fuel - industry -
funded group called the Global Climate Coalition accused the IPCC author Benjamin Santer of making unauthorised changes to make global warming appear more certain than it was.
Perhaps the most totemic sign of the times came in September
when the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund, a philanthropic body set up by the heirs to the Standard Oil fortune, announced that it would pull its money out of fossil
fuels, beginning with coal and tar sands.
Conflict of interest becomes relevant
when «people might be perceived to be skewing their research to come up with pleasing responses for their
funders, and there's no real equivalent to the fossil
fuel industry on the other side,» Schmidt said.
Dale clarified it in another post
when he said that ``... the FIT itself is
funded by energy bills — so it's a subsidy from all users to a few — that's OK if it all goes to the
fuel poor as you describe — but in practice a lot of it (most of it) goes to the
fuel rich — increasing the bills of the
fuel poor.
According to the International Monetary
Fund,
when you factor in implicit subsidies from the failure to charge for pollution, climate change and other externalities, the post-tax cost of support for fossil
fuels comes in at close to $ 2 trillion each year.
But
when it comes to the anti-fossil
fuel zealots that
fund his brand of «investigative journalism,» he assures everyone that there is no connection between the money and the end product.
When questioned, they demonize their critics, particularly former believers, usually by using ad hominem attacks or claims that critics are being
funded by «evil» fossil
fuel interests.
For the others to shut up it is sufficient to have their
funding cut off which ere long might happen
when the fossil
fuel industry throws up the game.
So what we are really saying as scientists and technologists is that, how can we expect to have all the technological solutions in place — every single component —
when there simply isn't a market demand for it;
when the government is
funding subsidies 10 to 1 in terms of fossil
fuels to renewables.
When the loudest voices are fossil - fuel funded think tanks, when they don't publish in journals but instead write error - laden op - eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't scie
When the loudest voices are fossil -
fuel funded think tanks,
when they don't publish in journals but instead write error - laden op - eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't scie
when they don't publish in journals but instead write error - laden op - eds in partisan venues,
when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't scie
when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they're doing isn't science.
So, let's see,
when we (those defending the AGW theory) note that, of the small minority of scientists on the skeptic side making discredited arguments, many if not most seem to have quite direct connections to right - wing or libertarian organizations like the Cato Institute or the George C. Marshall
Fund or with the fossil
fuel (especially coal) industry, we are derided as engaging in «ad hominem» attacks and so forth.
Pielke says he's never been
funded by fossil
fuels interests — a fact to which Grijalva already knows since Pielke disclosed as much
when he testified before Congress.
(You may never see a more perfect example of hypocrisy than the climate - change movement's ironclad belief that their vast
funding is one hundred percent pure and noble — even
when, as Curry notes, it comes from those eeeeeevil fossil
fuel companies, who donate enormous sums of money to universities and environmental groups.)
They won a big victory in 1982
when Congress cut
funding for the Clinch River
fuel processing project.
Libertarian organizatons sponsored by the fossil
fuel interests crusade against «big government,» but people don't seem to realize that
when we have a weak government and lax regulations it means we are being ruled by politicians
funded by big business.
So it took most people by surprise
when the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund (RBF) announced in September that it would divest from fossil
fuels and invest in cleaner alternatives.
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.
Fueled by the growth of a guaranteed rate of interest AND tax free dividends, this asset will grow independently
when fully
funded and will add to the asset value of your company.
That buying power is
fueled largely by the publicly traded Inland Real Estate Corp., as well as the firm's two private REITs — Inland Western Real Estate Trust Inc. and Inland Retail Real Estate Trust Inc. «
When you have three very large
funds growing, you then have the ability to find more deals that you like,» says Cosenza, Inland's director and vice chairman.