Meanwhile, Major oil and gas companies have little intention of taking concrete actions to transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy solutions despite their public efforts to be seen as working to address climate change, according to a report released Friday by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. The committee said it found Shell, Chevron, BP and the American Petroleum Institute all made major investments in projects that would “protect and entrench the use of fossil fuels, long past the timeline scientists say would be safe to prevent catastrophic climate change” despite making climate pledges. “They’re basically saying, ‘we’re going to increase production, we’re going to increase emissions, but we’re also going to be able to claim being this clean tech company, this green company, because we can take some symbolic actions that make it look like we’re in the climate fight,’” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a member of the committee. “The cynicism was breathtaking, and unfortunately, it was quite successful,” he said, “It’s been a successful PR strategy.” The committee’s Democratic members all signed on to the report, but no Republicans put their name on it. According to internal documents released to NBC News as part of the report, oil companies forecast sizable returns on their fossil fuel investments. One internal document from Chevron touts up to a $200 billion return over the next 40 years after upscaling oil production off the coast of Australia.
This is content that needs to shouted out to the world (America) but there is more interest in the petty, repetitive nonsense that Makes and Keeps a zombie citizen distracted and checked out. Thanx Paul, again for the urgency in your presentations. ShakeUp XR
Brilliant Video .. perhaps the discussion can be focused on what Canada is currently doing. For the first time I have faith in humanity. Again Brilliant Video
Spend a week on the street talking to people, 40 hours or more. Find a way to bring up the climate and listen to their opinions without commenting. Only then will you understand the scale of the problem.
Certainly didn't need to advertise a one percenter actor with false attribution -- "to quote Tom Cruise" (?) Does he NOT understand that Cruise is an ACTOR who does not WRITE his own lines and who is playing a CHARACTER?
We will be producing much less food in the future, maybe only 2 or 3 billion because fertiliser production is declining because of #PeakOil which occurred in November 2018. Modern agriculture is the use of land to turn petrochemical products into food. The whole green revolution is built on it. That is a great vulnerability. We are in overshoot now and 8 billion is too many. There is no way we could feed 10 billion now. The speaker to that point is wrong. Has anyone noticed the empty supermarket selves? Soaring food prices. Easier and cheaper than developing more tech and more complexity and thus more vulnerability is downsizing our economy, our energy use and our population which along the way reduces complexity and reduces vulnerability.
I suggest you look at this article: news.uchicago.edu/story/feeding-10-billion-people-earth-possible-and-sustainable-scientists-say Here's another excellent article: www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts
@@ClimateEmergencyForum 10 billion ONLY with fossil fuels which are not going to be possible. Why? Because the population doubled 3 times from 1 billion people to 8 billion today in 200 years on the back of the once only supply of fossil fuels. Once that once only infusion is gone so too will most people. Sad but true. We have not even sustainably fed less than 10 billion without ruining soils and waterways and pollution. We do feed 8 billion but not sustainably, but only by destroying the eco-system.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Meanwhile, Major oil and gas companies have little intention of taking concrete actions to transition away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy solutions despite their public efforts to be seen as working to address climate change, according to a report released Friday by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.
The committee said it found Shell, Chevron, BP and the American Petroleum Institute all made major investments in projects that would “protect and entrench the use of fossil fuels, long past the timeline scientists say would be safe to prevent catastrophic climate change” despite making climate pledges.
“They’re basically saying, ‘we’re going to increase production, we’re going to increase emissions, but we’re also going to be able to claim being this clean tech company, this green company, because we can take some symbolic actions that make it look like we’re in the climate fight,’” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a member of the committee.
“The cynicism was breathtaking, and unfortunately, it was quite successful,” he said, “It’s been a successful PR strategy.”
The committee’s Democratic members all signed on to the report, but no Republicans put their name on it.
According to internal documents released to NBC News as part of the report, oil companies forecast sizable returns on their fossil fuel investments. One internal document from Chevron touts up to a $200 billion return over the next 40 years after upscaling oil production off the coast of Australia.
This is content that needs to shouted out to the world (America) but there is more interest in the petty, repetitive nonsense that Makes and Keeps a zombie citizen distracted and checked out. Thanx Paul, again for the urgency in your presentations. ShakeUp XR
Another good show, thanks.
my great grandma's WWII ration book has printed in bold letters: Don't buy things you don't need.
Brilliant Video .. perhaps the discussion can be focused on what Canada is currently doing. For the first time I have faith in humanity. Again Brilliant Video
Thanks Raymond!
Everyone needs to do there part.
We must change yesterday.
Spend a week on the street talking to people, 40 hours or more. Find a way to bring up the climate and listen to their opinions without commenting. Only then will you understand the scale of the problem.
Save Our Planet - Science
Certainly didn't need to advertise a one percenter actor with false attribution -- "to quote Tom Cruise" (?) Does he NOT understand that Cruise is an ACTOR who does not WRITE his own lines and who is playing a CHARACTER?
We will be producing much less food in the future, maybe only 2 or 3 billion because fertiliser production is declining because of #PeakOil which occurred in November 2018. Modern agriculture is the use of land to turn petrochemical products into food. The whole green revolution is built on it. That is a great vulnerability. We are in overshoot now and 8 billion is too many. There is no way we could feed 10 billion now. The speaker to that point is wrong. Has anyone noticed the empty supermarket selves? Soaring food prices. Easier and cheaper than developing more tech and more complexity and thus more vulnerability is downsizing our economy, our energy use and our population which along the way reduces complexity and reduces vulnerability.
I suggest you look at this article: news.uchicago.edu/story/feeding-10-billion-people-earth-possible-and-sustainable-scientists-say
Here's another excellent article: www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts
@@ClimateEmergencyForum 10 billion ONLY with fossil fuels which are not going to be possible. Why? Because the population doubled 3 times from 1 billion people to 8 billion today in 200 years on the back of the once only supply of fossil fuels. Once that once only infusion is gone so too will most people. Sad but true.
We have not even sustainably fed less than 10 billion without ruining soils and waterways and pollution. We do feed 8 billion but not sustainably, but only by destroying the eco-system.
time for a vegan world as well