Donald Trump has a lot of
ideas about the fossil fuel industry and how he plans to «save» coal from destruction.
Not exact matches
Vermont's governor and state treasurer have different
ideas about the subcommittee being formed to investigate
fossil -
fuel divestment for the state's $ 4 billion retirement fund.
This relates to the whole area of development for people talking
about biofuels, which is this
idea of trying to develop replacements for the conventional sorts of
fossil fuels that we have to at least — if we are going to be burning some sort of hydrocarbons of some kind — to try to get them [so] that they are being derived from a different source, and potentially or ideally, ones that would actually burn without delivering as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere too; that's great if you can get that.
The genesis of this
idea for DOJ to investigate
fossil fuel companies lies in the comparison between the actions of the
fossil fuel industry and the actions of other industries known to have intentionally misled the public
about the nature of their products, including the tobacco and lead paint industries.
And the
idea that we can replace
fossil fuels and nuclear with solar, wind and dams is increasingly viewed as
about as credible as replacing vaccines and antibiotics with homeopathy and acupuncture.
Mr. Dickson wrote passionately
about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the
idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the
idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning
fossil fuels really does cause global warming.
However pesonally I worry
about energy security (we do nt have enough of it here) and in the other sense I don't like the
idea of being in thrall to
fossil fuel suppliers who basically don't like us.
To quash the notion that no valid scientific criticism exists against the
idea of man - caused global warming, enviro - activists often say «denier scientists» are paid by the
fossil fuel industry to lie
about the issue, insinuating a parallel to expert «shills» who did the same for «big tobacco».
Some readers still buy the «pox on both their houses»
idea about this election, — the
fossil fuel industry knows that is definitely not so, and would very much like you Johnson / Stein folks to stay strong and express your inner child.
And at the heart of the matter is our dependence on
fossil fuels and how the
idea of stabilizing our emissions from burning
fossil fuels will impact on just
about everything we do and believe in - what I think Doctor Curry referred to as our «values».
You have heard
about the concept [or silly
idea] that CO2 emission from
fossil fuel use would at some point would reach a saturation point?
What with national newspapers talking
about survivalism and community resillience, and radio soaps joining the Transition Towns initiative, it really seems like the mainstream media in the UK are embracing the
idea that peak oil,
fossil fuels and climate change are very real, and very immediate, threats to our way of life.