It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Top 20 Climate Killer Banks

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
As the global warming scam unfolds and the truth begins to surface,we see the most affluent banks profit from the very lies they portrayed as truth...

Source

The top three “climate killers” will not come as much of a surprise: JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and none other than Bank of America top the list with $22 billion, $18.27 billion, an $16.79 billion invested in coal since 2005, respectively.

As officials from around the world are assembling in Durban, South Africa to discuss ways to combat climate change, banks around the world are busy trying to figure out how they can profit off of making the climate crisis worse.


Related links

Bankrolling climate change




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedal
As the global warming scam unfolds and the truth begins to surface,we see the most affluent banks profit from the very lies they portrayed as truth...

Source

The top three “climate killers” will not come as much of a surprise: JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and none other than Bank of America top the list with $22 billion, $18.27 billion, an $16.79 billion invested in coal since 2005, respectively.

As officials from around the world are assembling in Durban, South Africa to discuss ways to combat climate change, banks around the world are busy trying to figure out how they can profit off of making the climate crisis worse.


Related links

Bankrolling climate change


Run into a wall head first as fast as you can. Banks are not moral entities, they're businesses and like every other business their overall goal is to make money. Sorry but alternative energy sources are not really profitable. How much of your money is invested into alternative energy?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitch303
 


Not much...although I have plenty of trees and a fireplace...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedal
reply to post by Fitch303
 


Not much...although I have plenty of trees and a fireplace...


A Burning (Wood vs. Electricity) Question
sierraclub.typepad.com...


The comparative size of your carbon footprint depends on the source of your electric power and the quality of your wood burner. If the electric power used to heat your home is generated from coal or other fossil fuels, then your footprint might be bigger than if you're burning wood in a new, efficient, EPA-approved firebox or stove. But if you've got an old, inefficient stove or a traditional fireplace, your footprint could be way bigger than with electric heat. Also remember that you’ve got a major environmental tradeoff here: Even if the new wood burner has a smaller carbon footprint, per unit of energy it still releases a lot more other pollutants into the air than a coal-burning power plant, and it releases them right where you and your neighbors breathe.

Burning wood to heat a home emits 250 times as much global-warming methane as burning coal in a power plant.

edit on 1-12-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2011 by Fitch303 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitch303
 


Fires have been burning for thousands of years,the scientists can say what they will..while the very banks that pay for their science to be justified are the largest contributors..




top topics
 
1

log in

join