If we truly
move out of fossil fuel fast and furiously, demand for substitutes — for instance forests as a fuel source — could place tremendous new pressures on our planet if not managed well.
By last December, over 500 institutions including large insurers, funds and banks managing US$ 3.4 tn of assets pledged to
move out of fossil fuels for climate reasons.
Not exact matches
An unprecedented coalition
of close to 40 governments, hundreds
of businesses and influential international organisations has called today for accelerated action to phase
out fossil fuel subsidies, a
move that would help bridge the gap to keep global temperature rise below 2 °C.
This
move will not only cut carbon emissions, it will keep money in the hands
of American consumers and
out of the pockets
of the dirty
fossil fuel industry.
The next step is obviously to
move from commitment to action, by raising the level
of ambition
of the Paris pledges, phasing
out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 and providing support to those most vulnerable to climate change impacts.»
The resources required to rapidly
move away from
fossil fuels and prepare for the coming heavy weather could pull huge swaths
of humanity
out of poverty, providing services now sorely lacking, from clean water to electricity.
The current text therefore reiterates the existing commitment, adding that «we will endeavour to make further progress in
moving forward this commitment», encouraging all G20 members to initiate a voluntary peer review as soon as feasible, and noting the OECD / IEA progress report on the peer review process and facilitation
of inefficient
fossil fuel subsidies phase
out.
KEEP IT IN THE GROUND - The Guardian launched a petition urging the world's two biggest charitable funds to
move their money
out of fossil fuels.
The fight over clean energy and climate policy in California is dripping with
out -
of - state oil money because the oil billionaires want to stamp
out the progress that has been made to
move toward clean energy and energy efficiency, and keep us addicted to their
fossil fuels.
We've been
moving CO2
out of sequestration (
fossil fuels) into the more mobile atmosphere, water, biosphere — and as a result atmospheric concentrations
of CO2 will be
out of equilibrium until much slower natural processes
move the carbon
out of those compartments.
The Koch brothers — major Republican donors whose sprawling empire
of fossil fuel - related industries has made them billionaires — have cheered on the
fossil fuel - friendly
moves that Republican Congress and the Trump administration have undertaken, from an attempt to kill rooftop solar in the recent tax bill to a solar tariff that could slow solar adoption to going ham with offshore drilling to pulling
out of the Paris climate agreement.
They announced their decision to
move its entire investment portfolio
out of the
fossil fuel industry over the next three years.
Albeit localised in this case, this example
of a
fossil fuel becoming stranded by lower - cost, lower - carbon alternatives and increasing regulations provides an excellent example
of how the future may pan
out globally and with other
fuels as the world
moves to a low - carbon economy.
Specifically, they say that humanity «must begin now to
move toward the era beyond
fossil fuels», and «the most difficult task, phase -
out over the next 20 - 25 years
of coal use that does not capture CO2, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II.
Hundreds
of institutions around the world are committing to
move their money
out of the
fossil fuel industry.
The Paris Agreement is based on emission scenarios that
move from a sluggish phase -
out of fossil fuels to large - scale late - century negative emissions.
The article is published as part
of the newspaper's Keep it in the Ground campaign against
fossil fuel companies, encouraging big capital investors to
move their interests
out of brown energy — «divestment».
Webb wrote to Davey a few days later: «[Newspaper] articles reported you backing
moves that would encourage investors to think about
moving their money
out of «risky»
fossil fuel assets, suggesting global emissions limits could make hydrocarbon reserves unburnable, therefore stranding assets and rendering them worthless.»