Sentences with phrase «subsidies from their governments since»

At issue is the assertion by the Big Three U.S. airlines — Delta, American and United — that the Gulf carriers have received $ 42 billion in subsidies from their governments since 2004, violating open skies agreements by giving them an unfair advantage in the international aviation market.

Not exact matches

Unfortunately, however, government resources are actually flowing the other way: according to a report from the U.S. - based National Resources Defense Council, since 2009, global subsidies for fossil fuels have almost tripled to an estimated US$ 775 billion this year.

The remaining students attended what might be called voucher schools, because the schools, while private, had been since 1981 heavily dependent on the subsidy that the schools received from the national government for each student they enrolled.

So, since governments fleeing from further alternative energy subsidies [probably mostly cause they can't afford it - rather than any sensible reason] we will see a global reduction of CO2 emission because this.

It is hardly surprising that such reductions in subsidies would lead to «protests» and «outrage» from the solar industry; an earlier Washington Post article by Faiola in November 2009 took note of the fact that even with subsidies in place, average German families had a hard time adopting solar on a household level since they «can't afford the initial cost, which runs between $ 8,000 to $ 20,000 even after generous government rebates.

The unit, which BP has been scaling back since 2008, is the latest sun energy business to fall victim to rampant competition from China, falling prices, overcapacity and lower government subsidies on which the industry still depends.

Since the ESA forbids the Federal Government from funding any activities which might harm a listed species, why not sue to prevent the ridiculous Federal subsidies on Ethanol, on the grounds that the production, distribution, and use of ethanol have a net negative impact on carbon dioxide emissions when compared with petroleum products, thus accelerating global warming and further endangering the polar bears.

You may wonder why the government finds the need to pursue such action since 1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have already topped out and have generally been on the decline for the past 7 - 8 years or so (from technological advances in natural gas extraction and a slow economy more so than from already - enacted government regulations and subsidies); 2) greenhouse gases from the rest of the world (primarily driven by China) have been sky - rocketing over the same period, which lessens any impacts that our emissions reduction have); and 3) even in their totality, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have a negligible influence on local / regional / global climate change (even a immediate and permanent cessation of all our carbon dioxide emissions would likely result in a mitigation of global temperature rise of less than one - quarter of a degree C by the end of the century).

This strategy protects most consumers from the impact of the federal government cutting off CSR funding, since it ultimately just results in larger premium subsidies (premium subsidies are based on the cost of the second - lowest - cost silver plan in each area, so as silver plan premiums rise, so do subsidies).