Sentences with phrase «knew about fossil fuels»

«In this case, Exxon scientists knew about fossil fuels causing global warming and Exxon took internal actions based on its knowledge of climate change,» according to DeSaulnier and Lieu's letter.

Epstein asks if everything we know about fossil fuels could be wrong, and suggests readers should «look at the big picture of fossil fuels»:

Not exact matches

And some believe fossil fuel companies could be legally liable if they knew about climate change dangers but suppressed that information.

The cities allege that, for decades, the companies sold fossil fuels they knew were contributing to climate change, while engaging in a multimillion - dollar campaign to sow doubt about global warming.

«It's very mysterious at this point in time, we don't really know what's contemplated there,» Fulton says, «If you piece together the different things that have been said by the president - elect about fossil fuels, and encouraging fossil fuel development, you'd expect this would have something to do with that.»

«We now know a great deal about the harm from the emissions from fossil fuels,» said Frederica Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health at the Mailman School of Public Health.

Abstract: Black carbon (BC) from biomass and fossil fuel combustion alters chemical and physical properties of the atmosphere and snow albedo, yet little is known about its emission or deposition histories.

These researchers wanted to know more about the role of pollution from traffic and the industrial burning of fossil fuels in these deaths.

As you know, the largely underplayed message of the I.P.C.C. report, which I wrote about but didn't get much coverage elsewhere, is that the atmosphere and climate won't notice the difference between a Gore - style immediate emissions freeze or a pedal - to - the - metal fossil - fuel party for more than 20 years.

What is more important is that the fossil - fuel industry knew about the danger in the 1970s, perhaps even the 1960s, and what they did about it was to fund a massive campaign of denial.

In the future, when fossil fuels are no longer the leading source of energy around the world and oil platforms aren't pumping oil from beneath the ocean floor, we won't have to worry about oil spills, but unfortunately, ocean pollution from spills, leaks and other sources is still a reality.

Hales» pioneering research in ocean carbon chemistry underlies much of what we know about the role carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions plays in changing the chemistry of Northwest seas.

Even for those of you who are interested in seeing a reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels — and I know how passionate young people are about issues like climate change — the fact of the matter is, is that for quite some time, America is going to be still dependent on oil in making its economy work.

I mean: she already knows about the connection between the use of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect, the global warming and the wide spread climate changes.

Given the very well established history of lying by omission in fossil fuel industry propaganda, did they just pick three bodies out of about 60 or so that happened to have some record of warming, no matter how flimsy that warming record is?

A front - page article and headline on April 24 reported that the Global Climate Coalition, a group that throughout the 1990s represented industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, knew about the scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions could cause global warming but ignored it in a lobbying and public relations campaign against efforts to curb emissions.

It's about time somebody pointed out that fossil fuel companies» disinformation campaigns are known to be full of lies by the ones who ordered them.

Increasingly, attention has turned to non-state actors, particularly fossil fuel producers: they knew about the risks of their business, and they chose to misinform investors and the public about those risks.

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.

Did you know that many states are talking about putting a price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels?

Less well known is the immense potential of soils to act as vast carbon sinks, with the ability to «naturally turn over about 10 times more greenhouse gas on a global scale than the burning of fossil fuels.»

If companies or individual building owners are serious about combating climate change and / or reducing carbon emissions then their is NO possible way to continue to use any form of combustion based, fossil fuel, systems of any kind!

Specifically, there's a case for avoiding continued dependence on fossil fuels that persuades me regardless of what scientists think they know about the long - term human impact on our climate.

Moreover, we know that about half of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels and trash natural ecosystems stays there.

Recently, a scientist named Jagadish Shukla penned a letter to the White House asking that fossil fuel companies be investigated under anti-racketeering laws for funding disinformation campaigns about global warming (a campaign we know they did and have continued to do).

It would also immunize fossil - fuel companies from lawsuits for damages done by their products — lawsuits such as those bound to arise from the revelations that ExxonMobil and other companies knew for decades about the climate damages their products cause, and lied about it.

But with fossil fuels, the issue is no longer just about siting, choosing among sources carefully, or mitigating impacts after the fact; we must stop expanding their use immediately and categorically, and transition away from them over time.

This report is one of dozens of internal documents unearthed by journalist Jelmer Molmers of De Correspondent and posted this week on Climate Files that shed more light on what Shell knew decades ago about the risks of burning fossil fuels.

For decades Exxon and their fossil fuel industry peers covered up how much they knew about climate change.

The fossil free divestment movement has been successful because it knows that fighting for climate justice is about changing the power dynamics of our political system and standing up to the fossil fuel industry.

I gave you a link to a paper that proves the fossil fuel industry misled the public about the known threat to mankind.

I fear that the «spin» is a juggernaut that can't be stopped few know or care about the details of this subject I live in a highly affluent urban area, cheek to jowl with a major science oriented university I know no one who doubts the «consensus» the «man as scourge of nature» religion rules few are a aware of the hiatus, those that are consider it Koch and fossil fuel industry propaganda sigh... the voices here are, for me, a glimpse of light and reason I guess we are about to endure a media barrage thanks Dr. Curry, I'll re-read this post once in awhile during the blitz

The plaintiffs fault oil and gas companies for knowing about climate change in the mid-20thcentury, accusing them of ignoring the «warnings» and proceeding «to double - down on fossil fuels.»

But every one of these cases ignores the fact that the public has known about the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change for decades and has continued to rely on oil and natural gas because of its unmatched cost, energy density, and reliability.

«The American people deserve answers from executives at Exxon about what they knew about the impact of burning fossil fuels on our climate, when they knew it, and what they told their investors and the world,» Healey said.

The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2 %, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us.

No matter where you go with the «public is reluctant to accept catastrophic man - caused global warming» talking point, there is the «industry - corrupted skeptics» accusation — Gelbspan's accusation about leaked fossil fuel industry memos.

We don't know whether what you claim are benefits of «cheap» fossil fuels can really be attributed to their low cost or not, as we can't go back and check on every case as its price impacts work their way through the economy, nor can we speculate about foregone benefits, or whether the benefits are due to the artificially reduced price of burning carbon or whether people would enjoy them (or even greater benefits) in a fair market, except by examining by Capitalist analysis.

If Gelbspan and Gore knew that about those memo phrases, and knew this material was worthless from the start as evidence of a fossil fuel industry conspiracy, but maliciously pushed it anyway to destroy the character of skeptic scientists, it could be an actionable epic form of libel / slander.

I had been lazily assuming it was because fracking is about fossil fuels, which are politically unpopular at the moment, but I don't really know.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

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.

Since then, InsideClimate News published an exposé detailing a $ 30 million, multi-decade effort by Exxon Mobil to sow doubt about climate change, despite the company's own internal deliberations about known climate risks associated with fossil fuel use.

The former secretary of state was first asked a «yes or no» question about banning the extraction of fossil fuels from public grounds.

Attorneys representing the teen plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit want to probe Tillerson on what he knew when about the dangers of burning fossil fuels to the climate.

Industry leaders knew about the risks of global warming as early as the 1970s, but recognized that dealing with global warming meant using fewer fossil fuels.

The 106 - page complaint sketches a timeline of what Exxon knew about the risks fossil fuels pose to the climate, starting in the 1970s.

As I'm sure you know Fran, fossil fuels provide the cheapest power in most places in the world and in many places they're many times as cheap as alternatives, why else would about 85 per cent of the world's power be supplied in that way?

Regulators and the fossil fuel industry say offshore fracking operations have a good safety record and tend to be smaller in size compared to onshore operations, but environmentalists continue to worry about the chemicals used in the process because many of them are known to harm marine wildlife.

Pingback: Companies knew about the link between fossil fuel and global warming as far back as the 1980s - SustainableSA.com