It seems whatever can be burned to power a car, heat a home or make electricity, or ship people and goods is being sold at bargain basement prices.
Is it just us, or did something happen at that 2014 United Nations Climate Summit in New York City this week? The largest-ever climate change march took place in the city and the headlines were full of interesting items, from the famous oil family the Rockefellers divesting their charity from fossil fuels to Google telling ALEC goodbye over climate change lies. World leaders from wildly different countries gave speeches detailing what they plan to do on the issue of climate change. US president
Climate change was barely mentioned during October presidential debates, but that doesn't mean the public doesn't care. After all, climate change affected Hurricane Sandy, and that got some media coverage. Some analysts say climate change is just part of historic weather patterns that humans have little say over but most scientists say humans play a big part in the matter, in part through our increasing consumption of fossil fuels.
Last week, Mitt Romney released a comprehensive energy plan. While taking a backseat to the economy and job creation, energy issues have been discussed regularly by presidential candidates Romney and Barack Obama, and their viewpoints diverge widely. In its online magazine, conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute broke out the core issues that separate the candidates:
If you think ending the ethanol subsidy puts all fuel sources on an equal footing, think again. While there has been a great deal of vitriol directed toward subsidies for alternative energy and plug-in vehicles, very little has been heard about the ways in which fossil fuels are given a huge advantage – and there are many. In fact, compared to the help fossil fuels are given, tax breaks for alternative energy are decidedly modest.
Reforming eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would save governments billions of dollars while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and freeing up monies for incentives on cleaner forms of energy, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), a Canada-based research institute.
Earlier today, we covered the words of some auto industry insiders at the recent Automotive Research's Management Briefing Seminar in Traverse City, MI, who said the didn't like that the Obama Administration was "picking winners" by funneling funds on plug-in vehicles. Well, okay, they're entitled to their opinion. But, if the industry doesn't want governments to push one particular energy type over another, maybe auto industry execs should seriously reconsider their support of fossil-fueled eng
The oil spill in the Gulf has had a profound effect on the environment, the scope of which won't be fully understood for some time. This disaster has also caused widespread anger, brought environmentalists out of the woodwork and even swayed public opinion on the use of fossil fuels. According to a recent poll, the American public now perceives a renewed need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
Listen to the messages coming out of Washington, D.C. and you'd think we're spending all our available money on clean and green technologies, things like algae biofuels, cleaner cars and advanced batteries. Turns out, this isn't remotely true. According to a new study that reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008 was just released by the Environmental Law Institute and discovered that the U.S. spends about two-and-a-half times as much on fossil fuels (mostly aiding fo
We first heard about a proposal to ban cars powered solely by fossil fuels way back in 2007. According to Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen, the plan "is much more realistic than people think when they first hear about" it and is still very much in the works. Still, it's highly unlikely that the proposal would come to fruition due to opposition from current Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.