Not exact matches
Because there would be no connection between how much a person pays in fees and the size of the rebate, there would be a strong incentive to use
less fossil fuel in order to keep more of that
money.
But the price of
fossil fuels and
fossil - intensive goods continues to rise, and consumers quite predictably spend
less money on goods and services when their prices rise.
In fact, put your
money where your mouth is and start living that cleaner, healthier,
less fossil fuel dependent life... go live the Amish lifestyle.
Although I definitely prefer nuclear to
fossil fuels, I'm cautiously supportive of the Bowland drilling as it could mean
less of our
money will be going Gazprom's way in the short term (ie until we can expand our nuclear fleet).
Imagine
fossil fuel companies taking responsibility for their CO2 emissions and imagine the beef industry taking that CO2 and storing it in the soil, where it enables the production of more food, on
less land, for
less money, using
less water.
Facebook: Homegrown clean energy projects mean more jobs & revenues stay in North Carolina — and
less money flows to out - of - state
fossil fuel companies
So Gray and anyone so inclined is right to follow the
money, but since 80 per cent of the global and U.S. economy runs on
fossil fuels, if you do some real math the trail leads directly to those who profit most from
fossil fuels, not those worth one - ten thousandth or
less who study their effects.»
The way to «spend
less money on electricity and gasoline» is sure as hell not to slap a direct or indirect carbon tax on motor
fuels or
fossil fuel generated electrical power.