Sentences with phrase «burning known fossil fuel»

Burning known fossil fuel reserves would release nearly 3000 gigatonnes, and energy companies are currently spending $ 600 billion trying to find more.

Given that the IEA and even oil companies such as BP and Shell have confirmed that burning all known fossil fuels would result in more than 2 °C of warming, we feel there is reasonable consensus around this issue.

Not exact matches

Reducing carbon pollution 80 percent by 2050 means that in just 34 years there will be no more fossil fuels burned in New York.

Reducing carbon pollution 80 percent by 2050 means that in just 34 years there will be no more fossil fuels burned in New York,» stated Bambrick.

For starters, scientists know why CO2 levels are now increasing — burning of fossil fuels and other human activities (SN: 5/30/15, p. 15).

(Reuters)- The U.S. electric industry knew as far back as 1968 that burning fossil fuels might cause global warming, but cast doubt on the science of climate change and ramped up coal use for decades afterward, an environmental watchdog group said on Tuesday.

And so I think that the logic, you know, the logic of fossil fuel was a centralizing one, it occurred in a few places, it was highly efficient to take it to other centers, easy to transport, you can take it some centralized place, and burn it in mass quantities, produce power that you then distributed widely.

McKibben: Yeah, it could be and [they] are very interrelated because the thing that's allowed that complexity [and] that size is the access to endless amounts of cheap fossil fuel, which we no longer are going to have, a) because we're starting to run out, b) more powerfully because we can no longer safely burn it.

We also know the atmospheric increase is from burning fossil fuels because of the isotopic signature of the carbon in the atmosphere.

These researchers wanted to know more about the role of pollution from traffic and the industrial burning of fossil fuels in these deaths.

We know with certainty that the increase in CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution is caused by human activities because the isotopes of carbon show that it comes from fossil fuel burning and the clearing of forests.

As we will show, Earth's paleoclimate record makes it clear that the CO2 produced by burning all or most of these fossil fuels would lead to a very different planet than the one that humanity knows.

Secondly, the amount of the concentration rise is in line with the amount we know we are putting into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.

Likewise, we KNOW that CO2 from fossil fuel burning is up in the atmosphere.

Yes, we certainly do need to immediately halt this ridiculous policy of burning fossil fuels and emitting GHGs into the atmosphere until we know for certain that they don't cause GW.

It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes.

We can not pretend that we do not know the consequences of burning all fossil fuels.

One of the things pointed out in that post is that we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in the ocean.

Less well known is the immense potential of soils to act as vast carbon sinks, with the ability to «naturally turn over about 10 times more greenhouse gas on a global scale than the burning of fossil fuels.»

While planting trees for bioenergy would no doubt lead to an uptick in ozone pollution, it should be noted that burning fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — is generally seen as a larger and graver contributor to air pollution than tree plantations.

The graph produced from its measurements, known as the Keeling Curve, was the first to show the tight relationship between the increase in CO2 in the air and the rise in the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas.

In summation, the known facts (listed as points 1 to 10 above) demonstrate that there is no conclusive evidence that any of the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is or is not due to the burning of fossil fuels.

They also know that the buildup of the heat - trapping gas began when humans started burning fossil fuels to power industry in the 18th century.

This demonstrates that there is significant waste in the treatment of fossil fuels that will disappear when a price signal for wasting the resource is sent to consumers; further, we know there are significant and readily available alternatives for energy to energy derived from burning carbon, and when the price is made clear and fair, the preference for these alternatives is amply illustrated in the Market; from these two effects we see that the Law of Supply and Demand is relevant to the pricing of CO2E, and not monopolistic pricing.

Combining that with theoretical knowledge on ocean chemistry and on known sources of carbon from burning fossil fuels and other human activities is enough to give a clear picture on main trends.

The articles revealed that Exxon's top management (NYSE: XOM) knew as far as back as the late 1970s of the threat of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels.

A carbon footprint, as commonly known, is simply the weight of carbon or carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels.

Moreover, we know that about half of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels and trash natural ecosystems stays there.

We're taking natural materials — fossil fuels buried in the Earth, which took millions of years to form — and we're using them in a pretty unnatural way: burning them and releasing that hidden carbon back into the system in the form of CO2 so fast that the Earth doesn't know how to handle it.

Not only does the government want Australia's enormous known fossil fuel reserves to be burned, it even promotes exploration for new ones.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.html http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html There is no chance the CO2 rise is from anything other than fossil fuel burning, we know this from the isotope signatures of the actual CO2 molecules.

This report is one of dozens of internal documents unearthed by journalist Jelmer Molmers of De Correspondent and posted this week on Climate Files that shed more light on what Shell knew decades ago about the risks of burning fossil fuels.

The public has known for decades of the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, yet society has continued to use oil and natural gas because there are still no alternatives that match their low - cost, their energy density, and their dispatchability.

«Please please finally say NO to new coal burning power stations & NO to the billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies.

«Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.»

But every one of these cases ignores the fact that the public has known about the link between burning fossil fuels and climate change for decades and has continued to rely on oil and natural gas because of its unmatched cost, energy density, and reliability.

«The American people deserve answers from executives at Exxon about what they knew about the impact of burning fossil fuels on our climate, when they knew it, and what they told their investors and the world,» Healey said.

We already know we are putting too much heat - trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air when we burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, fuel our cars, and heat our homes — but by cutting down and burning trees, we are also releasing an astounding amount of the same heat - trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

We also know the atmospheric increase is from burning fossil fuels because of the isotopic signature of the carbon in the atmosphere.

In all three cases it is easy to know what nature does: a net source, a net sink or a huge sink, simply by substracting the calculated emissions of fossil fuel burning from what is measured in the atmosphere.

Although the burning of fossil fuels generates most of the potential emissions from most reserves, emissions from production and processing operations (known as «upstream emissions») can also be important, depending on the reserve type and technologies used.

The problem is, the total known fossil fuel reserves being held would release 2,860 GtCO2 into the atmosphere if burned.

So if the fraction of lighter carbon isotopes in the atmosphere is increasing, we know the increase is due to burning plants and fossil fuels, and that is what scientists observe.

It is morally questionable to burn fossil fuels now, give what we know, period.

We don't know whether what you claim are benefits of «cheap» fossil fuels can really be attributed to their low cost or not, as we can't go back and check on every case as its price impacts work their way through the economy, nor can we speculate about foregone benefits, or whether the benefits are due to the artificially reduced price of burning carbon or whether people would enjoy them (or even greater benefits) in a fair market, except by examining by Capitalist analysis.

All of it is absolutely essential to prove Lovins» assertion that the burning of fossil fuels for energy production is no longer our cheapest option.

However, for the past century we know that the CO2 is not coming from the oceans but from human burning of fossil fuels.

The rise in greenhouse gases corresponds with the extra amount of CO2 known to have been emitted by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

And if we allow all known fossil fuels to be extracted from the ground and burned, the Arctic would warm an unimaginable 17 °F and push global temperatures up 8 °C.