Sentences with phrase «not fossil fuel money»

Not exact matches

Its not just the liberals, prior to their entrance on stage» it was the conservatives taking in this money for fossil fuel approvals.

«We're not going to be intimidated by people who take a lot of money from fossil fuel companies and then do their bidding,» Schneiderman said.

But that contagion is not spreading fast enough, and investors continue to plunge their money into investments tied to fossil fuels, according to the Environment Inquiry.

Actually if you calculate, you think about those 600 fossil fuel power plants, and if you calculate how much money is spent to purchase the fuel, that's the big thing that people don't really think about.

Fossil fuels cost a lot of money and [have] a lot of climate impact; that's something we haven't covered either, but this plan will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions to about a third of what they are now [by] 2050, assuming some level of growth as well.

They can not tell us how much money will be invested in green energy R&D, whether fertility rates will go up or down, whether we will dig up all the remaining fossil fuels and burn them, or the outcomes of numerous other decisions that affect the atmosphere — though they can tell us what will probably happen if we do or don't take them (see «Earth, 2100 AD: Four futures of environment and society «-RRB-.

Historically, Dr. Balling has taken plenty of money from fossil fuel interests, which brings in funding not only to Balling's predetermined «research,» but hundreds of thousands of dollars in overhead payments to Arizona State University (see Balling's 1997 testimony to the Minnesota News Council).

[AR: I keep hearing, again and again, that China simply will not budge from its growth, coal, and emissions trajectories without help — meaning money — from countries, like the United States, that have built their own economies on fossil fuels for a century or two.

«The United States is heavily dependent on fossil fuels (> 80 %), most of which come from places we would rather not send our money to.

The effect will not be to remove but to move money in the economy, from traditionally favored fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables.

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.

Most people not involved in the fossil fuel industry will be glad that tax monies don't go to their coffers)

For years, environmentalists have been attacking Soon for taking money from energy companies with fossil fuel interests, the only update the Times story added was that Soon allegedly did not disclose this to academic journals he was being published in.

Fossil Free Southwark's first members met one another in February 2015 underneath the letter «N» whilst spelling out the words «Divest London» in front of Tower Bridge as part of a Global Divestment Day event calling on City Hall to take its money out of fossil Fossil Free Southwark's first members met one another in February 2015 underneath the letter «N» whilst spelling out the words «Divest London» in front of Tower Bridge as part of a Global Divestment Day event calling on City Hall to take its money out of fossil fossil fuels.

Interestingly, the landmark international accord draws a big fat highlight (and maybe a circle and some stars in the margin) across the work that activists and leaders are doing in the Pacific Northwest: not just the work to keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay for their pollution, but also our work to reduce the influence of money in politics and reform broken North American democratic institutions.

The voice against fossil fuel subsidies has internationally grown stronger the last couple of years - both among civil society and world leaders - but it is apparent that European decision makers don't feel enough pressure to start putting their money where their mouth is.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

Beginning as a movement in 2011, young people on campuses across the US were determined that their college or university should not be putting money into fossil fuels, and urged their schools to divest their endowments away from fossil fuel companies.

Instead of keeping the taxpayers» money, why not distribute it in order to fund micro generation projects that will actually make a difference, rather than these massive developments that rely on fossil fuel plant to be constantly spinning as a backup.

It doesn't matter that institutions ranging from the CRU and Stanford University have received funding from fossil fuel sources, or that BEST's Richard Muller actually got money from the Koch Brothers.

Maybe those money - grubbers don't like the competition or they just want to stay rich peddling fossil fuels.

So there aren't any money - grubbers in the fossil fuel business?

The individual consumer could then use their consumer power and choose whether they are prepared to support (be a customer) with a company which is potentially making most of its money from Fossil fuels or Nuclear but then adds a large amount to invest in renewable energy OR not be associated with companies which deal in fossil fuel based electricity at all: i.e. not supporting = not being part of the problem philosophy — OR any cross-over between thFossil fuels or Nuclear but then adds a large amount to invest in renewable energy OR not be associated with companies which deal in fossil fuel based electricity at all: i.e. not supporting = not being part of the problem philosophy — OR any cross-over between thfossil fuel based electricity at all: i.e. not supporting = not being part of the problem philosophy — OR any cross-over between the two.

The results they turned up not only fail to support the «big oil / fossil fuel» funding of folks who disagree with various aspects of the CAGW meme, they show where the money is really going.

If there are in fact serious environmental problems with fossil fuels it would be in the public interest to put resources into addressing these problems instead of wasting efforts and money on limited inefficient and costly alternatives which only serve to harm the economy and a failed economy can not properly look after the environment

``... The point was not that money from the fossil fuel industry had corrupted the findings of the scientists...

Citigroup are making the Citigroup buildings energy efficient, but what they didn't say was whether they would stop investing in or taking money and profits from their fossil fuel customers.

The fossil fuel companies don't need to convince denialists of anything, but they get their money's worth by «convincing» non-expert policymakers who oppose any actions on carbon because they are told to.

There have been exceptions such as Schwarzenegger who was charismatic enough not to need fossil fuel money, but the typical congressman is not going to win with charisma.

During MSNBC's coverage of Hurricane Irma on Saturday, NextGen Climate founder Tom Steyer argued that politicians who take money from fossil fuel companies and lie about climate change don't want to talk about climate change now because they have «enabled»

Wait, are you saying those fossil fuel powerplants can't be build without outside money?

Why not take the revenue from the fee created to tax fossil fuels and use that money to invest in green businesses and entrepreneurs?

Essentially, solving the longer term energy problem — i.e. let's quit relying on buying fossil fuels from places that don't like us and extort money — also solves any CO2 emission problem (if it exists) by default, meaning that climate change is a secondary beneficiary and not a primary reason to do any of these things.

«If people want to waste money and do symbolic gestures and start ratcheting down their cities» energy use and emissions and start putting in mandates for energy that doesn't produce the same for fossil fuels — more power to them.

In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $ 10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from «fossil - fuel types» in the 1990's and had not received any money from these since.

One of the most frequent arguments against sustainable investing is that it won't yield as much money as investing in fossil fuel assets, high - carbon companies or weapons manufacturers.

But if there's money to be made in nuclear, why wouldn't the fossil fuel industry move into it?

To recap, fossil fuel - burning utilities a) collect the assessment from their customers directly, b) don't have to spend the time and money to organize themselves, and c) will be the beneficiaries of the money they collect.

The individual consumer could then use their consumer power and choose whether they are prepared to support (be a customer) with a company which maybe making most of its money from Fossil fuels or Nuclear but then adds a large amount to invest in renewable energy OR not be associated with companies which deal in fossil fuel based electricity at all: i.e. not supporting = not being part of the problem philosophy — OR any cross-over between thFossil fuels or Nuclear but then adds a large amount to invest in renewable energy OR not be associated with companies which deal in fossil fuel based electricity at all: i.e. not supporting = not being part of the problem philosophy — OR any cross-over between thfossil fuel based electricity at all: i.e. not supporting = not being part of the problem philosophy — OR any cross-over between the two.

... If you believe that solving the climate change problem «is fundamentally a technological challenge,» then we are in this mess not because of the power of the fossil fuel lobby, not because of the influence of the campaign of denial, not because of money politics, not because persuading consumers to accept a price on carbon seems too hard, and not because getting international cooperation has been fraught.

Today a coalition of NGOs, including 350.org organised a mass mobilisation of hundreds of people at the Place du Pantheon, Paris, to demand that not a penny more of money is invested in the fossil fuel industry.

I can't help that -LSB-...] I am reaching out to the fossil fuel community right now and raising money for Heartland,» he said.

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.»

Though the transition to this fossil fuel independence will certainly not be free and will require huge sums of money.

Owning fossil fuel deposits was once like having money in the bank — but not any longer, investors are being warned.

Comparing the entire fossil fuel industry to the billions spent on AGW advocacy is nonsensical, not least since they actually spend more money on pro-AGW causes than anti-AGW (they don't actually care if you impose carbon taxes on their customers, that only hurts poor people).

If there was any influence of fossil fuel companies» dirty money on the exhibition, it certainly wasn't obvious to me.

Since reducing GHGs, if done smartly, also saves money without reducing productivity, then there's really no excuse not to vigoroously pursue such strategies — rather than continue subsidies to fossil fuels (which we pay for April 15th, if not at the pump or on our utility bills, or at least we pan costs & eco-harms off to future generations).

Making this switch, particularly in large numbers, will send a powerful message to the government that the people want an alternate model, not one that subsidizes fossil fuel companies to the tune of # 1,000 per household per year, using taxpayers» money.

From another angle, if the US wasn't so utterly dependent on fossil fuels it would not have to spend so much money supporting the national and corporate goals of ensuring that the oil keeps flowing, in the process supporting despotic regimes, even supporting friendly governments trying to peddle their environmentally destructive oil as a better alternative to those regimes, and de facto supporting rampant environment destruction in some of the world's poorest regions.