Sentences with phrase «spent than fossil fuels»

Renewable energy and energy efficiency investments create far more jobs per dollar spent than fossil fuels, including natural gas (source - PDF).

Not exact matches

It would be unfortunate, to put it mildly, to spend countless trillions replacing fossil - fuel energy infrastructure only to discover that its successor is also more damaging than it need be.

When energy consumers, like Japan's gov» t, decide that it's better to spend a bit more money on limitless and safe ethanol, solar, wind, water, or geothermal power than on limited and dangerous fossil fuels, then the energy industry will change because it must.

Stack said Palo Alto's utilities divisions, which had revenues of about $ 100 million last year, spent a little more than $ 400,000 on RECs to offset its purchase of electricity derived from fossil fuels.

If they do, rather than calling for the unrealistic «end of the fossil fuel era,» they'd call on the «climate aid» to be spent on «improved public health, education and economic development,» as recommended by noted economist Bjorn Lomborg.

In recent years, the total cost of fossil - fuel consumption subsidies worldwide has ranged from $ 480 billion to $ 630 billion per year, plus more than $ 100 billion spent every year in production subsidies.

To clarify, the context of the above snip had to do with state spending on education and social safety net programs, but that «you and me» reference covers far more ground than that, considering the Koch brothers» all - in approach to their fossil fuel holdings.

By contrast, despite spending over $ 2 trillion in 5 decades, aid programs have much less to show in terms of poverty reduction — or its ancillary benefits, e.g., reductions in hunger, disease, better health care and education, and greater adaptive capacity to deal with climate change and natural disasters — than does fossil fuel - powered economic development.

As you may gather from my bio, I spent many years working with and around fossil fuels, though my ongoing involvement in energy is much broader than that.

In this graphic, you can see that according to Oil Change International analysis, governments around the world are spending perhaps more than $ 1 trillion USD combined per year subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.

If fossil power is cheap enough that there are only x % households in fuel poverty (Wiki: In the UK, fuel poverty is said to occur when in order to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth a household needs to spend more than 10 % of its income to maintain an adequate heating regime), but the alternative carbon - free power increases the percentage of households by 10 % there are negative consequences to not using fossil power.

Spending on fossil fuel subsidies in 2016 is projected to amount to less than 1 % of GDP, versus more than 3 % in 2014.

London, 19th April 2013 — Today new research by Carbon Tracker Initiative and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science reveals that despite fossil fuel reserves already far exceeding the carbon budget to avoid global warming of more than 2 °C, $ 674 billion was spent last year finding and developing new potentially stranded assets.

While overall spending on climate - related activities is higher than on fossil fuels, there is still a lack of progress in phasing out fossil fuel investments and increasing climate finance.

Specifically, a clean - energy investment agenda generates more than three times the number of jobs within the United States as does spending the same amount of money in the fossil fuel sectors.

If pollution, CO2 emissions and fossil fuel consumption are your concern, getting people to drive more fuel - efficient cars could be achieved at low cost through legislation, and would make more of a difference than spending vast sums to extend railway passenger services.

In keeping with their outsized roles, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil spent more on campaign contributions and lobbying than any other fossil fuel company this year.

Over the last two years, fossil fuel interests spent more than $ 700 million to shape a Congress that would champion its priorities, according to a December report by the Center for American Progress, based on data from the Center for Responsive Politics and Kantar Media Intelligence / CMAG, as published by the Atlas Project.

Rather than lobby for change in dysfunctional, and old, Washington, DC, 350 has spent the past five years spreading the word around college campuses, religious organisations and municipal authorities, for instance pressing them to shed stakes in fossil - fuel firms.

This year, the oil, gas and coal industries combined have spent more than $ 153 million on ads promoting fossil fuels and attacking renewables, according to the New York Times.

Carbon tax is regressive since in America, the poor spend a bigger percentage of income on fossil fuels than the rich with their nosebreather Priuses etc..

They are the fossil fuel interests who are making more money than ever known to man, and spending equal amounts on making sure they can continue to make that money.

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).

The World Bank has also urged an end to fossil fuel subsidies, as a way to help poor nations adapt to climate change (though the World Bank figure on how much is spent on subsidies is markedly lower than the IEA's; I'd trust the latter's).

With more than a touch of irony, a motorcyclist who spent about 20 years as an off - shore oil driller is demonstrating that there are alternatives to fossil fuels.

Fact — If the money being used to subsidize wind power was spent on conservation, insulation, energy efficient lighting and heating equipment, and fuel efficient vehicles, the reductions in fossil fuel use would be many times greater than the benefits provided by wind power.

In the meantime because society is not resilient to current extreme weather I think that in addition to funding research for cheaper fossil fuel alternatives we should be spending money on adapting to extreme weather rather than subsidizing any current technology renewable energy.

There are better ways to spend public funds than facilitating the building of new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Thus, we are currently spending the energy savings that nature provided us a million times faster than that it took to build that fossil fuel «nest egg.»