Sentences with phrase «see coal and oil»

I'd love to see coal and oil reduced tremendously in use in the world.

Not exact matches

It's easy to see why we should produce our own energy — relying on other countries for oil, natural gas, and coal (the biggest sources used today) can get complicated.

Instead of a world dominated by renewable sources of power like wind and solar — as people concerned about the dangers of climate change would hope — PE execs see gas, oil and even coal as a substantial component of electricity and fuel sources in 2039, according to recent interviews conducted by CNBC.com on the future of energy as part of CNBC's 25th anniversary.

Renewable energy companies are expected to see big upticks in investments to develop new technologies, while coal and oil companies may see tougher regulations.

Over a year which has seen large banks halt funding for fossil fuel projects, major institutions divest from oil, gas and coal holdings, and oil companies snap up power and renewables companies in a bid to diversify their asset base, research published today by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF) and the Climate Change Collaboration suggests nervousness over climate risk has shot up in financial circles.

Of the other MINTs: Indonesia is in a stable recovery, but the importance of commodities like coal and palm oil means it will not return to previous growth levels soon; Nigeria's economy remains overdependent on oil, though Phylaktis sees its «fast - growing population and labor force feeding faster economic growth over the medium term»; and while «Turkey has a lot of potential,» Lau says, «its political and economic management is questionable and casts a shadow over the economy.»

Reading between the lines, some see the president's statement as a signal that the administration will try to push through reforms to federal leasing programs for oil, gas and coal on public lands.

In fact, the Libyan Sahara Desert contains unmistakable glacial scars and Antarctica has extensive coal deposits — and very likely abundant oil and gas — that establish that their plates were once at the other ends of the earth (see image at right).

restrict fossil fuel use so that we leave most of our coal, oil and gas in the ground (see chart below).

There are enough fossil fuel reserves (in oil, coal, and methane hydrates) to continue to increase CO2 way beyond 400ppmv as will be seen in a very few number of years.

If you look at page 20 you will see that in the reference case, oil and coal prices go up over time despite the improvement in technology happening simultaneously.

I don't see UNP cutting the dividend, so your're going to be paid to wait till the stock goes back up.I know it has headwinds China, oil, and coal but the is a high quality company.

Overall, I have yet to see anyone rebut the simple calculations of Vaclav Smil, the resource and risk polymath at the University of Manitoba, who has shown how capturing and processing just a small percentage of today's CO2 from coal combustion would require as much pipeline and other infrastructure as is now used globally to get oil — a costly commodity — out of the ground.

I see that mr. Boone, has run into trouble and right now oil is dirt cheap (let us see how long that lasts) but now that we are officially in recession (two consecutive quarters down) and the oil and gas companies boast record profits and the oil, natural gas, and coal resources will all last longer than 25 years by most projections (coal about a hundred years give or take a decade?)

Because if coal to liquids was profitable at the present price of oil, we'd be seeing someone open a coal to liquids plant and making a profit based on the difference.

It seems that the coal companies, the oil companies, and some of the utilities (as well as many politicians) don't want you to see this distinction.

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.

Many seasoned observers of climate science and policy feel it's hard to see how they will, given the pressures on political figures to focus on the here and now, and the variegated interests arrayed at the ranks of tables — from shrinking island states to oil monarchies to established and emerging powers sitting on mountains of coal — and the tough time our species has recognizing slow but consequential changes.

We already use very little coal, and we're running hard to slow, and then lower our use of oil & gas so that our economy keeps rolling, and people's houses are still livable, when oil, and then gas get really expensive, not this wimpy oil rise we've seen lately.

But, as I explained to Gell - Mann then, I don't see better communication, on its own, being remotely sufficient to set the world on a course to shift swiftly from the fuels of convenience — coal and oil — even as human numbers and resource appetites crest.

However, I've never seen a single media article in any U.S. press outlet that covered these issues — the large - scale evidence for global warming (melting glaciers, warming poles, shrinking sea ice, ocean temperatures) to the local scale (more intense hurricanes, more intense precipitation, more frequent droughts and heat waves) while also discussing the real causes (fossil fuels and deforestation) and the real solutions (replacement of fossil fuels with renewables, limiting deforestation, and halting the use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil.)

I think if you only fly over the interior and only see the rivers as blue streaks against the land, it's hard to appreciate how economically significant they are, and what a significant instance of federally maintained infrastructure they are; and coal and oil are among the most significant commodities on the rivers.

The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil.

We're seeing a confluence of interests that will — or at least should have — Big Oil and Big Coal worried.

There are enough fossil fuel reserves (in oil, coal, and methane hydrates) to continue to increase CO2 way beyond 400ppmv as will be seen in a very few number of years.

If fuel prices stay the way they've been (that is, expensive and becoming more so), we can expect to see more funding for magnificent developments in alternative fuels (sadly, one of which is coal) as they supplant oil as an industrial, commercial and transportation energy source.

Of course, in the same way that Jevons could not see the ability for oil, gas, and nuclear power to render us less fundamentally reliant on coal, I am sure we are making equally egregious errors in our predictions of energy transitions (or at least some of us are).

Even if you trim off the ends of the curve of squalor and overindulgence, you end up with a huge energy gap, which may already be what is helping drive up oil and coal prices (keep in mind most experts on fossil fuels I talk to see no signs of «peak coal» any time soon).

Coal is dying on its feet, and, IMO, we're about to see oil demand start to crater, too — Trumpism won't save it by desecrating US National Monuments.

And, if anything, these countries are more insistent than ever (see China's stance discussed here) that the heavy lifting, not marginal Obama - style cuts, needs to be done (or somehow paid for) by the world's established powers, which built their prosperity on decades of unrestrained coal and oil combustiAnd, if anything, these countries are more insistent than ever (see China's stance discussed here) that the heavy lifting, not marginal Obama - style cuts, needs to be done (or somehow paid for) by the world's established powers, which built their prosperity on decades of unrestrained coal and oil combustiand oil combustion.

Oh and watch for backlash lawsuits and rhetoric from right wing front groups: Congress of Racial Equality, Pacific Research Institute (Exxon funded front groups) and the Western Business Roundtable (industry group loaded with coal and oil) See motherjones.com story for details.

And I see opportunities to build, locally and nationally, from concern about vulnerability to climate and coastal hazards to the challenge of moving beyond widespread dependence on coal and oAnd I see opportunities to build, locally and nationally, from concern about vulnerability to climate and coastal hazards to the challenge of moving beyond widespread dependence on coal and oand nationally, from concern about vulnerability to climate and coastal hazards to the challenge of moving beyond widespread dependence on coal and oand coastal hazards to the challenge of moving beyond widespread dependence on coal and oand oil.

I mean: before the all the smart, knowledge - seeking people of this world all go mad with the realization that we're in the slow (but time is relative) process of destroying the living habitat of ours, by means of oil, gas, and coal; as well as a terrible lot of chain saws.

And this, more than anything else, is why we're now seeing the beginning of a transitional energy economy — one that will take us from an oil - slicked, coal - fired obscenity to a clean and green renewable energy futuAnd this, more than anything else, is why we're now seeing the beginning of a transitional energy economy — one that will take us from an oil - slicked, coal - fired obscenity to a clean and green renewable energy futuand green renewable energy future.

While planting trees for bioenergy would no doubt lead to an uptick in ozone pollution, it should be noted that burning fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — is generally seen as a larger and graver contributor to air pollution than tree plantations.

So we shall soon see what the real climate sensitivity is, as the resultant CO2 levels of production from those who have NO INTENTION of slowing down their coal and oil consumption, continue to ramp up their use of fossil fuels.

«Investors in carbon - intensive business could see $ 6 trillion wasted as policies limiting global warming stop them from exploiting their coal, oil and gas reserves, according to a report.

See the state / territory campaign page to download hardcopy sheets for the petition asking the SA Government to ban all new climate - damaging projects, such as all new coal, oil, and gas projects.

More than four - in - ten Indians (44 %) would like to see their country rely more on wind, solar and hydrogen in the future, while 28 % are committed to oil, coal and natural gas.

In addition, coal resources are even larger than those of oil and gas; consuming all of them would enable the global economy to emit 5 times as much CO2 as has been released since 1850 (5,200 GtCO2 or 1,500 GtC)(see Chapter 3 in IPCC, 2001a).

I like oil and gas producers, couldn't imagine life without them; but I think it's important to see that their green posturing is for requisite PR but also for a deadly serious commercial war with coal and nukes.

While the past few years have seen similar increases in natural gas and oil consumption in China, 2017 will reverse a few years of flat or declining coal consumption.

Let me see; so far you «We're all going to be roasted / drowned» Chicken Littles have called me in the pay of the oil industry, a propagandist for the coal industry, and also for the Republicans.

For reference, the IEA's 2017 Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS) sees coal, oil and gas allocated 36 %, 37 % and 28 % of the 2 °C emissions budget to 2040.

Altough, I see your point, if there's CO2 up there from burning oil and coal, it may hit that and make it warmer.

One of the biggest problems I see with emissions scenarios is the failure to recognise the growing body of published (peer - reviewed) literature on «peak oil» (and peak coal / gas).

So if coal was displaced by oil and NG (as we both agree would be logical) then what we should see is a post war drop in the HL pointing to a lower URR than the pre war trend.

Reduce dependency on (imported) fossil fuels (balance of payments, reliance on potentially unfriendly or unstable nations as suppliers, high cost at the pump, all problems as seen from US viewpoint): — encourage nuclear power generation (cut red tape)-- encourage energy savings and improved efficiency projects (tax breaks)-- encourage basic research into new (non fossil fuel) resources (subsidies)-- encourage imports from friendly neighbor, Canada (Keystone pipeline)-- encourage local oil and gas exploration («drill, baby, drill»)-- encourage «clean coal» projects (tax incentives)-- set goal to become energy independent within ten years

Sourcewatch reports allegations that Lindzen was consulting for oil and coal interests in the early 1990s, but I haven't seen anything more recent than this.

The government's interest in reducing China's use of coal and petroleum products extends beyond environmental and health concerns; it sees both the strategic value of mitigating its reliance on foreign oil and the economic advantages of being on the technological leading edge of energy production.