Sentences with phrase «over fossil fuel policies»

Not exact matches

Some countries have been able to reduce their emissions steadily over a 10 - year period, often by a combination of government policies and market reaction to the availability of fossil fuels and other natural resources.

Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emission by 20 percent and raise government revenue by 2.9 trillion, well over the funds needed for intelligent policy and action on climate adaptation.»

So, if Inhofe lets money dictate his policies, what does it mean that the top three contributors to his campaign are dirty energy companies (Koch industries being # 1), or that he has taken well over $ 1 million from the fossil fuel industry since 1999?

It's important to note that there's also sometimes a kind of «false inequivalence» in the fight over climate science and policies — an implication that the lack of action on greenhouse gases is largely the result of the unfair advantage in money and influence held by industries dealing in, or dependent on, fossil fuels.

Over all, Obama's choices reflect his longstanding pattern of charting a pragmatic path reflecting the need for strong regulation, including of greenhouse gases (embodied in McCarthy), and the simultaneous need to advance responsible use of cleaner fossil fuels while also using policies and investments to advance non-polluting energy technologies for the long haul.

Over the last year, Environmental Progress discovered that major environmental organizations including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) have accepted contributions from, or made investments in, fossil fuel and renewable energy companies.

The Heartland Institute is a fossil fuel - funded front group with over $ 800,000 in contributions from fossil fuel interests that has routinely attacked clean energy policies and the science behind climate change.

But proportionally, your current policies overwhelmingly embrace fossil fuel development over clean energy use.

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.

Such a transition would save $ 1.8 trillion over the next two decades, says a study by the Climate Policy Initiative, which also found that governments and taxpayers will bear the greatest financial risk if fossil fuel reserves are stranded underground.

Quantitative policy implications have been defined: coal emissions must be phased out over the next 20 years, and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands and oil shale, must remain undeveloped.

On the occasion of the Friends of the Earth International days of action for climate justice, activists from Center for the Environment / Friends of the Earth Bosnia & Herzegovina gathered in front of the Republika Srpska government building to show clearly what the country can expect over the next 30 years if the government continues to pursue a policy of investing in fossil fuels.

In COP22 press conferences, panel discussions, and multiple interviews, delegates familiar with Trump's policy proposals stress that the age of fossil fuels — built on antiquated 19th - century energy technologies such as coal — is all but over.

So, if Inhofe lets money dictate his policies, what does it mean that the top three contributors to his campaign are dirty energy companies (Koch industries being # 1), or that he has taken well over $ 1 million from the fossil fuel industry since 1999?

This strategy could help policy makers overcome a fundamental conflict in the debate over global warming: carbon dioxide, the main heat - trapping gas in the air, is an unavoidable byproduct of burning fossil fuels like coal and oil — and combustion of fossil fuels is the foundation of industrial societies.

Over the past week and a half youth have challenged Canada's irresponsible Canadian negotiation strategies, indicative of the close relationship between Canada's climate policy and dirty fossil fuels.

While Trump's rolling back a policy that may have loomed over coal producers in coming decades, it's going to take more to overcome market forces and raise demand for the fossil fuel to a level that'll put miners back to work, coal executives and analysts say.

Over the next several decades, almost all of the power plants in the U.S. will need to be replaced, and America's dependence on fossil fuels presents serious national security concerns — they sap our economy, exacerbate climate change, and constrict U.S. foreign policy.

'' [I] t is hard to deny that the fossil fuel industry has been fiercely fighting effective climate policies over the past couple of decades.

In one annual report, it declared:»... [T] here has been a close to universal impulse in the [fossil fuel] trade association community in Washington to concede the scientific premise of global warming... while arguing over policy prescriptions that would be the least disruptive to our economy... We have disagreed, and do disagree, with this strategy.»

Consider his recent Guardian column defending his «hockey stick» from the bad case of brewer's droop it's acquired over the last 15 years of non-warming: Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish professor named (unlike Mann) by Foreign Policy as one of the «Top 100 Global Thinkers», is dismissed as «career fossil fuel industry apologist Bjorn Lomborg»; Judith Curry, a member of the National Research Council's climate research committee, winner of awards from the American Meteorological Society, and co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, is billed by Dr Mann as «serial climate disinformer Judith Curry...»

A report published earlier this year noted that while a number of fossil fuel and utility companies have severed ties with the American Legislative Exchange Council over the group's controversial views on climate science and policies, Dominion remains a member.

A 3 % discount factor with an hypothesis of $ 250 bn annualy has in fact a $ 8 trillion dollar policy cost (fared in todays dollar value) and not $ 20 trillion over 87 years; (ii) I would assume, with great certainty, that the cost of the policy will not remain at $ 250 bn (in 2013 $) in the coming 87 years: government feed in tarifs and green certificate subsidies will become less and less expensive with renewable energy prices matching fossil fuel energy prices in the coming decades.

In their defense against the cities suing over sea level rise damages, the oil industry lawyers essentially argued that the blame lies not on the producers, but rather the consumers of fossil fuels, and that any economic issues should be addressed through policy rather than in the court system.

about In Trump Era, Right Wing Battles Itself Over Energy Policy, Fossil Fuels and a Warming Climate

However, I feel the risk of damage from policies that will raise the cost of fossil fuels is far greater over coming decades, and there is no valid basis for implementing policies that will be economically damaging to try to deal with problems beyond decades.

Interestingly, Cuomo's concept of governmental devolution on state shale - gas development presages on a smaller scale Republican presidential nominee Romney's plan to hand over Federal lands to the states for fossil fuel development, which would upend at least 50 years of US policy precedent.

In Oregon and Washington, for example, state RPS policies limit the cost of compliance to a 4 percent increase over an alternative, fossil fueled energy mix.

For example, in the IEA report that Chevron cites frequently, stranded assets are «capital investment in fossil - fuel infrastructure that ends up failing to be recovered over the operating lifetime of the asset because of reduced demand or lower prices resulting from climate policy» [3].