Sentences with phrase «new fossil fuel exports»

No new fossil fuel export agreements.

Not exact matches

It is time to not only ban fracking, but halt new investments in fossil fuels and related infrastructure, including pipelines, gas - fired power plants, fracking waste dumps, fossil fuel storage depots in the salt caverns by Seneca Lake, LNG exports at Port Ambrose, crude oil «bomb trains,» and a tar sands oil heater at the Port of Albany.

The U.S. Export - Import Bank (USEXIM) is the third - largest supporter of fossil fuels among all G20 countries, according to a new report out today from Oil Change International, Friends of the Earth U.S., and WWF's European Policy Office.

And after Rick Perry's first policy speech as Energy Secretary we now know which energy stocks will keep on going in today's new reality - fracking, mining and exporting fossil fuels overseas.

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. Export - Import Bank (USEXIM) is the third largest supporter of fossil fuels among all G20 countries, according to a new report from Friends of the Earth U.S. and Oil Change International.

A recent report from the Brookings Institution concluded that «the domestic clean economy already employs some 2.7 million workers,» which is more than the fossil fuel industry.9 In addition, it noted that newer «cleantech» segments produced «explosive job gains» that «outperformed the nation during the recession» and that the clean economy is «manufacturing and export intensive.»

At the same time the study showcased how wind energy can dramatically cut emissions, save billions in fossil fuel costs and generate new export opportunities.

«Real climate leaders must chart a new course on export finance, investing these resources in the tremendous clean energy opportunity while pivoting away from fossil fuels.»

Finally, we learned Australia must support its carbon price with other new and existing policies to address domestic emissions, and start phasing out its fossil fuel exports.

Australia should declare a moratorium on new fossil fuel mining and export projects, and begin phasing out existing ones.

Policies to ban logging on old growth forsts, end fossil fuel subsidies and ban all new export coal mines (including Adani) are outlined here under «ENVIRONMENT»: www.sustainableaustralia.org.au / policies

«We have one of the worst practices for using & exporting fossil fuel & yet are backward in investing in new solar energy practices....

«Action taken to increase Australia's capacity for fossil fuel production — such as increasing export capacity or commissioning new coal mines — is difficult to reconcile with the goals of the Paris Agreement,» the report says.

Note that NMBI legislation would ban NEW fossil fuel extraction projects and the resultant new export agreements, but adoption of NMBI legislation would not affect current export incoNEW fossil fuel extraction projects and the resultant new export agreements, but adoption of NMBI legislation would not affect current export inconew export agreements, but adoption of NMBI legislation would not affect current export income.

Here the focus is on coal exports rather than domestic use since the NMBI petition calls for bans on NEW fossil fuel extraction.

So, yes, it is important to maintain Australia's future export income, but given the small amount of export income we actually receive from fossil fuel exports, it should be relatively easy to replace that with new climate - safe exports and new foreign investment in local renewable energy projects provided we plan and prepare accordingly.

If all new coal and gas extraction projects are slated for export, why do state and territory governments even consider allowing new fossil fuel extraction projects despite the climate imperative of keeping fossil fuels in the ground, and despite often fierce community opposition?

Banning new fossil fuel extraction projects would indeed affect future export income since virtually all new extraction would be for export.

Even if they meet those targets, any actual climate benefit could be more than wiped out by the climate impacts of the fossil fuels exported from the NEW extraction projects they continue to approve in the meantime.

Australia can develop new climate - safe exports to make up for forgoing potential future export income that might accrue from new fossil fuel extraction projects.

Of course we need to stop new fossil projects of all types for climate reasons regardless of what it might cost us, but it seems we are not as dependent on fossil fuel exports for our prosperity anywhere as much as the fossil fuel industry tends to imply.

No new fossil fuel extraction is needed for use within Australia so new extraction projects simply mean more fossil fuel exports.

Banning new fossil fuel extraction projects would indeed affect future export income since it is likely that any new extraction would be for export.

This was followed by a session delving into the market realities of high wind integration in Alberta, including the findings of CanWEA's ground - breaking Pan-Canadian Wind Integration Study, which demonstrated how Canada can get more than one - third of its electricity from wind energy without compromising grid reliability, and at the same time dramatically cut emissions, save billions in fossil fuel costs and generate new export opportunities.

Yet on the ground, significant momentum has been building to tackle fossil fuels at their source, by trying to block new production and exports, and change the economics of the industry.

Regardless of who wins the election, that means standing firm against the continued expansion of the fossil fuel sector into new and high - risk territories, whether through tar sands, fracking, coal exports to China or Arctic drilling.

This expansion in US coal exports could release more carbon pollution than any other new fossil fuel project in the United States, according to a new report Greenpeace released today.

Consider the fossil fuels wasted carting fresh tomatoes to New Jersey, a state with ample farmland that exports tons of tomatoes every year.

«New Canadian oil - sands development is increasingly economically questionable without the additional export capacity that pipelines such as Keystone XL would bring», says Mark Lewis, external research advisor to a report from Carbon Tracker, a think - tank focused on the investment risks posed by excessive fossil fuel extraction.

As with fights under way over the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, and plans to build coal export terminals on U.S. coastlines, the new fossil fuel abundance is touching off a backlash among those alarmed by the consequences for climate change.

Reassesses the impact of new fossil fuel pipelines and liquefied natural gas export terminals on Canada's ability to fulfill its commitment to fight climate change.