Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Man Made Global Warming News


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 4251-4275 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 4:14:16 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
"Bush made a big mistake by not firing Hansen who corrupted NASA inside out"

no Bush didnt fire Hansen because that would have been even more pronounced censorship. Karl Rove probably thought it would would be a bad idea to fire him. Of course YOU think he should have been fired being the nazi that you are. Heck, Roy W. Spencer, the token denier still works at NASA even though he was proven to be inept

Posted on Apr 12, 2012 4:16:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 12, 2012 4:20:04 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor

by Roy W. Spencer

TH: the poor are greatest victims of global warming.

Climate Confusion: How Fake Science Leads to Chronic Global Warming Denialism Funded by Industry

Posted on Apr 12, 2012 5:57:33 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Why Do We Pay Energy Giants to Wreck Earth?
By Bill McKibben, TomDispatch.com
Posted on April 5, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/154865/why_do_we_pay_energy_giants_to_wreck_earth

Along with "fivedollaragallongas," the energy watchword for the next few months is: "subsidies." Last week, for instance, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez proposed ending some of the billions of dollars in handouts enjoyed by the fossil-fuel industry with a "Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act." It was, in truth, nothing to write home about -- a curiously skimpy bill that only targeted oil companies, and just the five richest of them at that. Left out were coal and natural gas, and you won't be surprised to learn that even then it didn't pass.



Still, President Obama is now calling for an end to oil subsidies at every stop on his early presidential-campaign-plus-fundraising blitz -- even at those stops where he's also promising to "drill everywhere." And later this month Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will introduce a much more comprehensive bill that tackles all fossil fuels and their purveyors (and has no chance whatsoever of passing this Congress).

Whether or not the bill passes, those subsidies are worth focusing on. After all, we're talking at least $10 billion in freebies and, depending on what you count, possibly as much as $40 billion annually in freebie cash for an energy industry already making historic profits. If attacking them is a convenient way for the White House to deflect public anger over rising gas prices, it is also a perfect fit for the new worldview the Occupy movement has been teaching Americans. (Not to mention, if you think about it, the Tea Party focus on deficits.) So count on one thing: we'll be hearing a lot more about them this year.

But there's a problem: the very word "subsidies" makes American eyes glaze over. It sounds so boring, like something that has everything to do with finance and taxes and accounting, and nothing to do with you. Which is just the reaction that the energy giants are relying on: that it's a subject profitable enough for them and dull enough for us that no one will really bother to challenge their perks, many of which date back decades.

By some estimates, getting rid of all the planet's fossil-fuel subsidies could get us halfway to ending the threat of climate change. Many of those subsidies, however, take the form of cheap, subsidized gas in petro-states, often with impoverished populations -- as in Nigeria, where popular protests forced the government to back down on a decision to cut such subsidies earlier this year. In the U.S., though, they're simply straightforward presents to rich companies, gifts from the 99% to the 1%.

If due attention is to be paid, we have to figure out a language in which to talk about them that will make it clear just how loony our policy is.

Start this way: you subsidize something you want to encourage, something that might not happen if you didn't support it financially. Think of something we heavily subsidize -- education. We build schools, and give government loans and grants to college kids; for those of us who are parents, tuition will often be the last big subsidy we give the children we've raised. The theory is: young people don't know enough yet. We need to give them a hand when it comes to further learning, so they'll be a help to society in the future. From that analogy, here are five rules of the road that should be applied to the fossil-fuel industry.

1. Don't subsidize those who already have plenty of cash on hand. No one would propose a government program of low-interest loans to send the richest kids in the country to college. (It's true that schools may let them in more easily on the theory that their dads will build gymnasiums, but that's a different story.) We assume that the wealthy will pay full freight. Similarly, we should assume that the fossil-fuel business, the most profitable industry on Earth, should pay its way, too. What possible reason is there for giving Exxon the odd billion in extra breaks? Year after year the company sets record for money-making -- last year it managed to rake in a mere $41 billion in profit, just failing to break its own 2008 all-time mark of $45 billion.

2. Don't subsidize people forever. If students need government loans to help them get bachelor's degrees, that's sound policy. But if they want loans to get their 11th BA, they should pay themselves. We learned how to burn coal 300 years ago. A subsidized fossil-fuel industry is the equivalent of a 19-year-old repeating third grade yet again.

3. Sometimes you'll subsidize something for a sensible reason and it won't work out. The government gave some of our money to a solar power company called Solyndra. Though it was small potatoes compared to what we hand over to the fossil-fuel industry, it still stung when they lost it. But since we're in the process of figuring out how to perfect solar power and drive down its cost, it makes sense to subsidize it. Think of it as the equivalent of giving a high-school senior a scholarship to go to college. Most of the time that works out. But since I live in a college town, I can tell you that 20% of kids spend four years drinking: they're human Solyndras. It's not exactly a satisfying thing to see happen, but we don't shut down the college as a result.

4. Don't subsidize something you want less of. At this point, the greatest human challenge is to get off of fossil fuels. If we don't do it soon, the climatologists tell us, our prospects as a civilization are grim indeed. So lending a significant helping hand to companies intent on driving us towards disaster is perverse. It's like giving a fellowship to a graduate student who wants to pursue a thesis on "Strategies for Stimulating Donut Consumption Among Diabetics."

5. Don't give subsidies to people who have given you cash. Most of the men and women who vote in Congress each year to continue subsidies have taken campaign donations from big energy companies. In essence, they've been given small gifts by outfits to whom they then return large presents, using our money, not theirs. It's a good strategy, if you're an energy company -- or maybe even a congressional representative eager to fund a reelection campaign. Oil Change International estimates that fossil-fuel companies get $59 back for every dollar they spend on donations and lobbying, a return on investment that makes Bernie Madoff look shabby. It's no different from sending a college financial aid officer a hundred-dollar bill in the expectation that he'll give your daughter a scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars. Bribery is what it is. And there's no chance it will yield the best energy policy or the best student body.

These five rules seem simple and straightforward to me, even if they don't get at the biggest subsidy we give the fossil-fuel business: the right -- alone among industries -- to pour their waste into the atmosphere for free. And then there's the small matter of the money we sink into the military mightwe must employ to guard the various places they suck oil from.

Simply getting rid of these direct payoffs would, however, be a start, a blow struck for, if nothing else, the idea that we're not just being played for suckers and saps. This is the richest industry on Earth, a planet they're helping wreck, and we're paying them a bonus to do it.

In most schools outside of K Street, that's an answer that would get a failing grade and we'd start calling subsidies by another name. Handouts, maybe. Freebies. Baksheesh. Payola. Or to use the president's formulation, "all of the above."

Posted on Apr 12, 2012 1:16:29 PM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Gallup: Public Understanding Of Climate Science Continues Rebounding

It was always the majority that believes GW is man made

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/12/463353/gallup-public-understanding-of-climate-science-continues-rebounding/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 3:06:19 PM PDT
probably take the GTO for a cruise this weekend. think 9 mpg is a little too conservative? Been thinking about a bigger carburetor; to pump gas thru faster.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 12, 2012 4:16:29 PM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Haha Ill be thinking of you when the price tops 4 a gallon foo

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 14, 2012 9:37:39 PM PDT
villageidiot says:
Let me guess, you're the one who always got the other kids in trouble at school, right? "I'm gonna tell".

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2012 10:29:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 15, 2012 10:29:48 AM PDT
Truthseeker says:
I didn't just accept any nonsense from anyone, and still don't :)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2012 10:52:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 15, 2012 10:53:13 AM PDT
TeaPartyWoman (still impersonating me as Truthseeker) "Bush made a big mistake by not firing Hansen who corrupted NASA inside out"

Th: no Bush didnt fire Hansen because that would have been even more pronounced censorship. Karl Rove probably thought it would would be a bad idea to fire him. Of course YOU think he should have been fired being the nazi that you are. Heck, Roy W. Spencer, the token denier still works at NASA even though he was proven to be inept

TS (real one) She is truly deranged you know. Reminds me of the time I was working at NASA as a contractor, and my phone rang and a female voice asked for the phone number of Michael Griffin (then the admistrator of NASA). She started mumbling how she had discovered a new source of energy she NEEDED to tell him about, but wait... oops these men in white coats were coming in her room, and she told me she needed to get off the phone.

REAL story! See any parallels?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2012 10:55:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 15, 2012 10:57:42 AM PDT
VI to TeaPartyWoman: Let me guess, you're the one who always got the other kids in trouble at school, right? "I'm gonna tell".

TS (real one)

TeaPartywoman started the BOO HOO game it was SHE being abused, after all of the regulars on the SCIENCE FORUM put her on ignore, citing her HORRIFIC abuses.

So BOO BOO HOO, see TeaPartywoman says SHE is the one being so abused.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2012 12:00:16 PM PDT
Treehugger© says:
oh ya TPW plays the victim real well

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2012 3:10:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 15, 2012 3:13:02 PM PDT
TH: oh ya TPW plays the victim real well

TS: Just part of this Shelob's NASTY web of lies.

Posted on Apr 15, 2012 3:20:32 PM PDT
Treehugger© says:
what is notable about the Oligocene is that at the end of it it warmed 2c and Antarctica thawed.......not good.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 9:20:50 PM PDT
villageidiot says:
Nonsense is fun. SCIENCE is boring.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 1:16:13 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Canada to cut back on environmental reviews
Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:40pm GMT

* New rules will speed approval of pipelines, mines

* Canada keen to quicken development of oil-rich tar sands

* Environmentalists say new rules increase disaster risks

* Government removes veto right from energy regulator

By Euan Rocha and David Ljunggren

TORONTO/OTTAWA, April 17 (Reuters) - Canada said on Tuesday it would streamline the way it performs environmental reviews on major industrial projects in a bid to speed the development of mines and pipelines, a move critics predicted could cause an environmental disaster.

And in a policy change that could benefit the oil and gas industry, the Conservative government said it will strip key veto powers from the federal energy regulator and give itself the final say on approving major pipelines.

The right-of-center Conservatives say the current regulatory system is too complex and lengthy and could threaten up to C$500 billion ($505 billion) of new investments in energy and mining industries over the next decade.

"We have to compete with other resource-rich countries for fast-growing markets and scarce capital. And we must do it now," Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said in a speech unveiling the new rules.

The federal government now will focus only on major reviews, handing over responsibility for some projects to Canada's 10 provinces, while ensuring each proposed development is assessed only once.

Ottawa will also impose legally binding timetables on reviews, which in the past have taken up to seven years to complete. Once the new rules are adopted, an assessment will be limited to a maximum of two years.

"We have immense resources, we are an energy superpower, we're a mining giant, and this can have an incredibly positive impact on the future prosperity and security of Canadians," Oliver told reporters after the speech.

The Conservatives are particularly keen to speed development of the oil-rich tar sands of northern Alberta, which represent the world's third largest oil reserves, and to build pipelines to take the Alberta crude to ports on the Pacific Coast. Environmentalists strongly oppose that idea.

Under the current system, the government can stop a pipeline plan that the National Energy Board - the federal energy regulator - has approved but it cannot overrule a decision by the NEB to veto a project. That will now change.

An official document said Ottawa would "establish clearer accountability for decisions on major pipeline projects in the national interest by giving government authority to make the 'go/no go' decisions."

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP and Enbridge Inc are both proposing to build major pipelines from Alberta to the Pacific Coast.

The NEB has only vetoed three projects since 1959 but it sometimes attaches conditions to the approvals it grants.

"What I think this points to is potential politicization of these decisions," said Josh Paterson of the West Coast Environmental Law Centre.

Other green activists - who complain about the Conservatives' tight ties to the energy industry - say trimming the regulatory process could lead to disaster.

"These changes are about handing oil and mining companies their approvals faster, rather than asking what kind of legacy this leaves for the next generation," said Keith Stewart of Greenpeace.

Oliver dismissed the idea that the environment would suffer, noting that Ottawa planned to impose stiff fines on firms breaking the rules and would boost both pipeline inspections as well as measures designed to improve tanker safety.

"Projects will go forward too fast and mistakes will be made. There will be more court cases," said John Bennett of the Sierra Club.

Legal experts say truncating the regulatory process could leave proponents of major projects exposed to lengthy court battles.

Asked whether the new rules would prevent lawsuits, Oliver replied: "This legislative project does not impact on people's legal rights ... we cannot preclude legal action."

Over 40 federal government departments and organizations currently have responsibility for project reviews. This number will be cut back to three.

"The minister's goal of 'one project, one review, completed in a clearly defined time period' makes great sense and would support developments that bring jobs and prosperity to Canadians," said Todd Nogier, spokesman for pipeline company Enbridge.

© Thomson Reuters 2012

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 1:17:55 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Die-offs show need to address ocean acidity

The Obama administration needs to start work immediately on a national plan to address ocean acidification.

The urgency of the problem was reaffirmed last week with the release of a new study that confirms the link between massive die-off of oysters and increased acidity in marine waters caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

The study, published in the scientific journal "Limnology and Oceanography" showed that baby oysters have difficulty growing shells and living in corrosive waters. For the past several years, some of the Pacific Northwest's largest commercial shellfish farms have seen oyster production collapse by as much as 80 percent.

The larvae of the Pacific oyster has become the latest canary in the coal mine, a harbinger of a marine ecosystem catastrophe that would have severe consequences, if allowed to continue.

Stemming the tide of ocean acidification is a global challenge that links directly to the need to reduce the onslaught of greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere. Each day, the oceans of the world absorb millions of tons of carbon dioxide from cars, industry and other human sources.

The carrying capacity of the oceans is being exceeded. The high mortality experienced by baby oysters is just the tip of an unprecedented ecological disaster that requires bold action on the climate change front

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/04/18/v-print/2073412/die-offs-show-need-to-address.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 1:18:34 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
Editorial: Climate change not in doubt


edmontonjournal.comApril 18, 2012



The next generation of engineers and geoscientists will be on the front lines of the fight against climate change.
Photograph by: Joseph Eid, AFP/Getty Images

EDMONTON - One of the puzzling aspects of the current provincial election campaign has been the lack of significant discussion about the single greatest key to Alberta's prosperity: sustainable development of the oilsands.

That issue came to the fore on Monday, when Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith reiterated her party's stance - that scientists are divided on whether human-caused climate change is occurring - and said that a Wildrose government would shift the way our province deals with environmental concerns related to energy use and development in Alberta. Instead of government addressing the specific issue of greenhouse gas emissions via such methods as carbon capture and storage, Wildrose would use tax credits to encourage individuals to make changes in their own lives.

The approach is consistent with the Wildrose tack of shifting accountability to individuals and businesses from government wherever possible. But there are two inherent flaws in Smith's reasoning: The jury is not out on whether humans are changing the climate, and individual Albertans and businesses have no hope of installing enough solar panels or buying enough fuel-efficient cars to reduce what is currently the largest carbon footprint of any Canadian province.

First, climate change. The vast majority of scientists actually working in the field of climate studies say there is no doubt that the world's climate is changing because of increased levels of greenhouse gases that humans are producing. While a small number of scientists do not agree, most of them are not experts in climate studies, but in other fields.

This is not just the contention of this publication. All major scientific organizations have stated this is the case. So have such energy goliaths as BP, Shell and Exxon; so has the world's political leadership. Further, they all acknowledge that this climate change poses a threat to our way of life. That's why the G20, a group of the world's largest economies including Canada, has committed to limit the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to below 450 parts per million, meaning the greenhouse gases being emitted globally have to start going down by 2020.

Second, Alberta's carbon footprint. This province is responsible for more than half of the increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in the last two decades. That's partly because we rely on coal to generate electricity. But development of the oilsands has also played a major role. Getting usable oil out of bitumen and shipping it to market requires a lot of energy - much more energy than other kinds of oil. Oilsands extraction now accounts for 6.5 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, and as production ramps up in Fort McMurray, that figure is not just increasing, but accelerating.

"So what?" some Albertans ask. There is international ­demand for energy. Alberta is a secure source of "ethical" oil. If we develop the oilsands, the fruits of this extraordinary natural resource will benefit the entire world - and us.

Except that the development of the oilsands is a subject of growing international debate.

Alberta's image outside our boundaries has been tarnished by problems associated with the oilsands, from pollution to carbon emissions. And as the rest of the world moves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Alberta and Canada look increasingly like outliers. We are gathering a reputation for being part of the problem, not the solution, to a key issue facing all humankind.

Alberta's Progressive Conservative government focused on a three-pronged approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions: energy efficiency, developing carbon-capture-and-storage technology to get rid of greenhouse gases and making energy production more efficient. Those methods were not particularly effective. Alberta is nowhere near on track to meet its 2020 goals to reduce emissions by 50 megatonnes relative to the business-as-usual scenario. But the plan recognized that in order for us to move in the direction the rest of the world is moving, government needs to get involved.

Denying that anthropogenic climate change is an issue or expecting individuals and businesses to make significant inroads on our carbon footprint is unrealistic. Failing to address valid international concerns about the environmental impact of the oilsands has the potential to derail this province's economy and our own prosperity.
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 4:05:56 PM PDT
Truthseeker says:
Lol business friendly policies in a vibrant Canada while America's economy is strangled with EPA over-regulation.
One is amazed at how much the world has changed.

Posted on Apr 19, 2012 4:33:15 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 5, 2013 10:24:22 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 5:24:36 PM PDT
Villageidiot says: Nonsense is fun. SCIENCE is boring.

TS: I see you were referencing TeaPartywoman's post.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2012 5:40:07 PM PDT
Lisareads says:
"Nonsense is fun. SCIENCE is boring. "
=========================
It is a matter of perception and lack of wisdom.

Posted on Apr 20, 2012 6:48:12 AM PDT
Readers who really want to know the truth about the science and public policy issues surrounding climate change are encouraged to read Pat Michaels' and Roy Spencer's books.

Richard H. Wright PE

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 21, 2012 2:25:58 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
"Readers who really want to know the truth about the science and public policy issues surrounding climate change are encouraged to read Pat Michaels' and Roy Spencer's books"

Accurate science has never been a priority for Spencer or his fellow disinformers - they hate government more than they love science.

Roy Spencer: "I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government."

Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and argued in 2005 that its teaching should be mandatory in schools. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion.

Spencer and colleague John Christy "published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated..."; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate put it:

"Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing - indeed encouraging - the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done"

Posted on Apr 27, 2012 3:25:55 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
NAIROBI (Reuters) - Kenya's tea production for the first three months of this year fell 15 percent to 72 million kg compared with the same period in 2011, hurt by extreme weather conditions, the Tea Board of Kenya said on Friday

"The fall is mostly weather related. The drought was quite severe this time around. Initially there were cases of frost and we had about 3,000 hectares under attack," Sicily Kariuki, the board's managing director, told Reuters.

Kenya is the world's leading exporter of black tea, and the commodity is its tope foreign exchange earner.

Posted on Apr 27, 2012 3:28:48 AM PDT
Treehugger© says:
FACT CHECK: Americans For Prosperity Announces $6.1 Million Ad Buy To Push Totally False Green Jobs Claims

By Stephen Lacey and Rebecca Leber on Apr 26, 2012 at 5:51 pm

After pouring more than $8.4 million into bogus energy attack ads since November, the oil industry front group Americans For Prosperity announced yet another major ad buy of $6.1 million in eight states.

The latest ad is based on a set of mistruths about green jobs that have been widely debunked.

In the ad, AFP explains that "billions of taxpayer dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries," and uses four examples that supposedly prove that Obama's clean energy stimulus created foreign jobs instead of domestic ones.

All four examples are either mostly or completely false.

1. The ad claims that $1.2 billion is being used to create solar jobs in Mexico. This point was completely made up by a random conservative blogger and has been repeatedly called out as a lie. This $1.2 billion loan guarantee was issued for a large, first-of-its-kind solar plant in California being developed by NRG. However, the blogger falsely wrote that the money was being used to create manufacturing jobs in Mexico.

In reality, the jobs created in Mexico had absolutely nothing to do with the loan guarantee. The only connection to Mexico was that some of the solar panels would be coming from a manufacturing plant located there. And even though the source of the panels had nothing to do with the decision to issue the loan guarantee, the company providing the panels, SunPower, explained that most of the panels were coming from America anyway.

2. The ad claims that a loan guarantee for an electric vehicle manufacturer went to jobs in Finland. This is also a made up story pushed by Fox News and conservative bloggers. In fact, all of the money used through the loan guarantee went toward building a U.S. manufacturing facility.

There were some jobs created in Finland during final assembly of the vehicles, but that was announced up front in 2009 when the loan guarantee was issued. According to the Department of Energy, all of the money set aside for Fisker's next-generation vehicle manufacturing was issued for American operations.

3. The ad claims that tens of millions of dollars went toward building traffic lights in China. This is another murky claim that doesn't hold up. In 2010, because of the lack of domestic manufacturing, the Department of Energy allowed some LED lighting technologies for stimulus projects to be sourced from overseas companies:

Federal agencies may waive the "buy American" requirement if they determine that a needed item is not available from domestic sources in sufficient quantities, that it would inconsistent with the public interest to comply, or that the cost is unreasonable.

The agency says that all of the investments made for lighting projects followed the Buy America requirements established in the stimulus package. To make the spin worse, the ad implies that the stimulus money went to install traffic lights within China. That is totally false.

4. The ad claims that $2.3 billion in clean energy stimulus incentives went to overseas firms. This figure is based on a 2010 Washington Times piece borrowing from an investigative story from American University that found stimulus dollars going to foreign companies developing projects within the U.S. The piece raised questions about how many jobs were being created overseas to build the technologies being deployed in the U.S.

After publishing that piece, investigative reporter Russ Choma told FactCheck.org that the numbers showed more jobs being created in the U.S.:

It should be noted there were no farms that we could find that used turbines entirely built in China, so we can't say for sure how much of this stimulus money went to create jobs in China. Some money definitely did, but it is safe to say more money went to creating jobs in the U.S. and Europe.

This latest ad brings the total amount spent by pro-fossil fuel groups to more than $24 million in just the first few months of 2012, based on a ThinkProgress analysis.

Jobs in green goods and services accounted for 3.1 million jobs in 2010, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In addition, a study found that every dollar put into clean energy creates three-times as many jobs as investing in fossil fuels.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  68
Total posts:  6137
Initial post:  Aug 7, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 18, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions