Sentences with phrase «opponents of carbon»

If this is really «an academic meeting» and «not evidence that AEI supports a carbon tax,» then why are there no opponents of a carbon tax on the agenda?

Rex Tillerson claimed to support a carbon tax while CEO of ExxonMobil, but under his watch last year the oil and gas company lobbied against two pioneering carbon tax bills in Massachusetts, and it has long funded opponents of carbon...

Rex Tillerson claimed to support a carbon tax while CEO of ExxonMobil, but under his watch last year the oil and gas company lobbied against two pioneering carbon tax bills in Massachusetts, and it has long funded opponents of carbon pricing.

«Founder Marshall Saunders espouses respect and love for political opponents of a carbon fee, and repeated engagement.»

Opponents of the carbon rules hope to see the courts invalidate them and are seeking a legal stay.

His concern, Stavins said, is that the language might encourage opponents of carbon markets to insert language into the Paris deal killing them altogether.

It represented the first prominent attempt from an opponent of carbon cuts to dangle geoengineering as an alternative to UN climate negotiations.

As his resume suggests, Goulder is by no means a climate change «denier» or even an opponent of carbon taxes.

Not exact matches

But fracking opponents claim that, though natural gas is considered the greenest of fossil fuels, shale extraction is significantly more carbon - intensive than conventional production and may result in the release of large quantities of methane, itself a greenhouse gas.

OPPONENT Shale gas may release less carbon but infinite supplies of renewables is better for the environment.

Opponents of the plan questioned whether it is really carbon - free, given the emissions involved in extracting the uranium that powers nuclear plants.

Clinton's Democratic primary opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, is rolling out a plan to slow the effect of climate change, vowing to cut U.S. carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

That is certainly true of Canada where Conservatives, for example, recently launched an internet campaign against their opponents» carbon tax.

While opponents of the measure have questioned links between carbon dioxide levels and emergency - room visits, evidence is piling on and health advocates are calling for action (ClimateWire, June 3).

Opponents of the scheme object on the grounds of its visual effect and the damage they say it would do to wildlife and carbon - storing peat bogs.

The opponents of the plan believe it will raise utility rates while failing to reduce carbon emissions.

It's up to players to find the optimal winning combination of industries and ecological disasters that will ultimately lead to the destruction of Earth, before positive forces, their opponent in the game, can find the solutions to carbon emissions.

Since the Advocates and the Opponents have a dispute over the impact of carbon compounds on the climate, it is most appropriate to take a look at the history of carbon now found in fossils.

Claims that opponents are «in the pay of big carbon», or other efforts to demonize the opposition, are the sign of intellectual laziness and lack of sympathy.

Giving a price for wind power 13,000 times as high as the actual figure Jones came as close as anyone I know of to another wind power opponent, Dr Roger Sexton who over-estimated the time it would take a wind farm to pay - back the carbon released from its construction by a factor of 60,000.

Carbon tax opponents and climate change doubters are prone to reject the environmental community's support of a carbon tax as the pleadings of liberal tree - huggers.

Opponents say it will foster the development of Alberta's oil sands, which will in turn emit more heat - trapping carbon dioxide when burned and thus exacerbate global warming.

Not surprisingly, opponents and supporters of carbon caps have very different takes on the poll's findings.

When US President Obama announced revised regulations on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from US power plants on August 3, 2015 in a laudable speech supporting the new rules, as he predicted opponents of US climate change policy strongly attacked the new rules on grounds that they would wreck the US economy, destroy jobs, and raise electricity prices.

NEW YORK (AP)- Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is embarking on a $ 10 million - plus ad campaign to take on opponents of President Barack Obama's plan to reduce power plant carbon emissions.

Opponents of policies to price carbon will likely continue with the «job - killing» rhetoric, but careful economic analysis suggests that these arguments are seriously exaggerated.

What makes this opposition most strange is that the arguments from these environmental opponents to cleaning up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere contradict their arguments in support of cleaning up litter.

A few noted skepticism of climate science, saying carbon dioxide is «part of the cycle of life,» but for many opponents of the Clean Power Plan, the argument wasn't whether climate change was real but whether the plan's target on reducing emissions from coal power would effectively slow global warming.

Hansen's Been Vocal Opponent of Cap and Trade Hansen has made such statements before: Back in May he said he hoped the Waxman - Markey bill failed because of concerns that the only people to really benefit from such a scheme are financiers acting as middlemen and that a «much more effective approach» was needed — such as a fee - and - dividend approach — which is essential a carbon tax on producers, with the money being given back to the public.

Since the opponents of cap - and - trade are going to pillory it as a tax anyway, why not go for the real thing — a simple, transparent, economy - wide carbon tax?

Obama Playing the Climate Game I've written before on how Obama seems to be positioning the EPA as a sort of bargaining tool in this regard — if opponents of climate legislation would abandon it altogether, then fine: here's a big ol' 1984 - ish EPA that can regulate any business or individual that emits too much carbon.

Opponents of the new rules argue that the technology to affordably reduce carbon emissions at power plants is not yet available and will drastically increase the cost of electricity.

Opponents of nuclear power have started a counteroffensive to Dr. Lovelock's call for a new nuclear age, arguing that mining uranium and building nuclear plants releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide, and that the danger from accidents or terrorism is too great.