Sentences with phrase «not against coal»

I am not against coal.»

Not exact matches

Coal plant in Kosovo Meanwhile, for many other environmental groups, the fight at the World Bank against coal isn't oCoal plant in Kosovo Meanwhile, for many other environmental groups, the fight at the World Bank against coal isn't ocoal isn't over.

However, regarding item # 4: The way I took that wasn't so much that it would give you the means to borrow in financial disaster (I'd rather walk on hot coals barefoot than consider borrowing against a HELOC).

The climate science also sure is subject to severe political pressures from varying lobbyist groups, first and foremost the oil an coal interests which are huge financial powerhouses especially in the US Senate — a body which in reality dictates the whole global «climate policy» or rather the absence of any such — serious climate politicans round the globe in reality have — as we now have seen — no chance at all against the denying forces and their huge media apparatus, as long as the public don't see some very serious consequences of climate change, fx.

Do not cave to those running an anti-American smear campaign against him in the name of coal - related jobs.

As long as fossil fuels wind up being abandoned, it doesn't matter how it happens, and it's probably more effective to use humor and economics against the pro-fossil-fuel crowd (oil & coal industries).

I think this emerging form of emissions accounting provides a valuable way to show how the growing coal (and natural gas) greenhouse - gas emissions commitment will play out, but — because of the competing social and economic values embedded in that extracted energy, along with the equity argument poor countries use against established fossil - powered industrial giants — I'm not sure it leads to a more effective strategy for cutting those emissions.

They don't want the coal industry to look like a science - denying dinosaur — a charge that's also been leveled against many Republicans on the far right.

She wrote Attack on Coal Will Not Save Lives, and as President of DDP below, supports many attacks against climate science, below.

I am not against new technologies but jumping the gun with not ready for prime time solar and wind, while cutting cheaper things like coal will only hurt the poor.

I'm not against EPA getting into some stringent controls of real pollution that may be associated with coal fired power; enough is known about clean coal that there is no reason for the (US) to put up with the kinds of gunk we used to.

Ex-Im Bank not supporting this dirty coal plant is a victory against Trump's promotion of fossil fuels at the expense of our climate and local communities.

As these alternative ways are competing against a set of products — in essence, two: petrochemical fuels and coal — that are subsidized by being allowed to use up the scarce resource of the carbon cycle's ability to cope with waste CO2E, the Market is not fair, and does not run according to Capitalist precepts, without such a carbon price.

Apparently, when Jonathan Moylan and his fellow activists are not campaigning against coal mines they are thinking about how to maximising their superannuation nest eggs.

Third, Obama certainly did not campaign against coal and I can't see the media taking a strong stance against it either.

However, Kitzhaber didn't take a stand for or against exporting coal, which supporters say would increase rural jobs and tax revenues in Oregon and Washington.

Oil and Coal companies are laughing their asses off at the thought of people being against wind power because it kills birds — even if it were true (which it is not) could clean small wind power possibly kill as many birds as oil spills and ground water and air pollution from coal / oil poCoal companies are laughing their asses off at the thought of people being against wind power because it kills birds — even if it were true (which it is not) could clean small wind power possibly kill as many birds as oil spills and ground water and air pollution from coal / oil pocoal / oil power?

AGW bandwagon is not against fossil fuel extraction (except maybe coal).

Complimenting the grassroots struggles, it looks at how we can change the rules of the game to help us, while building the public support for campaigns against dirty industry and making sure their PR machines don't succeed in rebranding coal, gas and oil as part of the solution.

The National Mining Association has argued against limiting mercury emissions by stating (34) «Regulations designed to further reduce mercury emissions must not jeopardize the nation's ability to utilize this domestic strategic energy resource and must not disadvantage any specific coal rank in the marketplace.»

Although the nominal cost of using coal to power existing grids remains misleadingly low today, it will not remain so for long as the tide turns against it.

While the recent moratorium on new coal leases on federal land will not directly impact the Colorado Roadless Rule decision, advocates are hopeful it signals that the Obama Administration will use this opportunity to take another stand against coal and climate pollution.

People have nothing against wind, Crimmins says, they're just not convinced it's ever going to have the kind of economic impact coal once did.

«Perhaps if they had spent more time and money diversifying their business rather than on lobbying against climate action and sowing the seeds of doubt about the science, they might not have joined the long (and ever growing) list of bankrupt global coal companies.»

Dirty fuels, like coal, can't be allowed to pollute the fight against climate change — they're a death sentence for people and planet.

Coal mines in the UK were shut down amid a historic dispute between the Government and miners, and the declining cost of importing coal from elsewhere against the rising costs of domestic production, not because Britain had run out of cCoal mines in the UK were shut down amid a historic dispute between the Government and miners, and the declining cost of importing coal from elsewhere against the rising costs of domestic production, not because Britain had run out of ccoal from elsewhere against the rising costs of domestic production, not because Britain had run out of coalcoal.

The main reason why very few new nuclear power stations opened around the world after the mid-1980s was cheap natural gas (plus double - digit interest rates, which favoured quick - to - build gas - fired power stations against slower - to - build nuclear and coal), not Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

The tide is turning against the thermal coal industry — high cost new mines don't make sense for investors

The Lummi's stand against Big Coal is not isolated.

Given all that I've dug up on the origins of the «industry - corrupted skeptic climate scientists» accusation, I'd call it a can't - lose wager if you bet that the «e-mail message circulated at a U.S. climate research lab» which Myanna Lahsen referred to owes its «funded by the oil and coal industry» accusation against skeptic climate scientists to Gelbspan / Ozone Action.

Duke Energy customers in North Carolina pay millions of dollars each year to fund industry groups that have spent years fighting against strong coal ash regulations, and have engaged in a host other efforts that do not benefit consumers.

I'm still not entirely comfortable with nuclear but I admit ignorance there and thus don't really advocate directly against it (PS somewhat the same position with GM foods / crops); what I know enough to be afraid of and advocate against is a BAU future of coal, oil, and gas, especially one without CCS or other sequestration, with mountaintop removal mining, with tar sands, with fracking (you may already be aware of the radioactivity associated with that), Hg, escalating prices, etc (and you would be against this too, I'm sure).

I am not against public money going towards making coal cleaner, but there is a valuation there on whether it is better to do that than shift to gas, for example, which would be a regional decision depending on all available options.

He says that the technology is remarkably cost - effective, which is exactly what it needs to compete the energy market, not only against other solar vendors, but also against other sources that have unfair advantages (coal is cheap because of «externalities» like air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions).

And aren't renewables interests and natural gas interests not rivals at all, but rather allies against coal and nuclear?

In other words: in the US and Europe, renewable energies have to compete against existing energy supply, in China they don't have to: there is enough space for both rapid expansion of coal power plants, and renewable energy.

And while the President lectures us about our sins against the planet, his EPA and other agencies embark on the project to impose penance on us by forcing the closure of coal and other fossil fuel power plants, blocking pipelines, bankrupting the coal mining industry, subsidizing intermittent power sources that can't possibly run a fully operational electrical grid at reasonable cost, and multiplying our cost of electricity by an order of magnitude or so.

I made the point then (and repeat it here) that although this doesn't «disprove» global warming (the globe has warmed and during this warming we have gone from about half a million cars to almost a billion, from about 500 coal - fired power plants to about 23,000 — I'll let you tell me about the growth in the numbers of airplanes, washing machines and data centers...), it is a fairly straightforward argument against high sensitivity of the atmosphere to increasing concentrations of CO2.

While it may remain profitable to build renewable energy installations, incentives against cutting carbon emissions were not strong enough: Prices for allowances to emit carbon dioxide have dropped and cheap gas in the United States is pushing an additional supply of hard coal on the market, reducing coal prices to their lowest in four years and incentivising utilities to sell more power from brown - and hard coal - fired power stations.

Although he said in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that independent spending does «not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,» Justice Kennedy authored a ruling in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. that mining company executive Don Blankenship's $ 3 million in independent spending for a West Virginia justice gave rise to an unconstitutional «risk of actual bias» in a lawsuit against the company.