Sentences with phrase «by reducing emissions now»

By reducing emissions now, it is said, we buy insurance against future catastrophic changes.

Not exact matches

«At over 20 GW of installed solar electric capacity, we now have enough solar in the U.S. to power 4.6 million homes, reducing harmful carbon emissions by more than 25 million metric tons a year.

We are now working toward achieving by 2020 new goals for reducing solid waste, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, nonrenewable energy use and packaging.

In response to its findings, Le Pain Quotidien now uses LED lighting in all 90 of its U.S. locations, which has reduced its energy consumption by 60 percent and its carbon emissions by 168 metric tons.

NRG now promises to invest $ 1.6 billion at the Tonawanda site by 2013 to install a new gasification plant that will burn low - sulfur coal and reduce harmful emissions.

These include: • One of the most technically advanced and cleanest smelters in the world which captures 99.9 per cent of sulphur emissions and generates two thirds of the plant's electrical power • A US$ 10m combined heat and power system that will reduce emissions by 90 per cent compared with separate heat and power systems • A vehicle idling reduction programme that now covers 360 vehicles and has resulted in the avoidance of more than two million gallons of fuel and emissions • New, more efficient trucks with fewer emissions

The now hyper - arid Sahara desert was characterized by a lush extent of grass and consequently reduced dust emission due to changes in Earth's orbital parameters.

Fossil fuels cost a lot of money and [have] a lot of climate impact; that's something we haven't covered either, but this plan will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions to about a third of what they are now [by] 2050, assuming some level of growth as well.

Indian emissions, for example, are expected to leap nearly eight-fold to 540 megatons by 2050 from 70 megatons now but the researchers found this rise could be reduced by more than a third if cities managed to cut down car use.

If the EU is serious about reducing emissions by 80 - 90 percent by 2050, then the issue of how to finance the development and implementation of innovative process technology must be brought to the table now.»

Synthetic fuels have one particular advantage over batteries or hydrogen as a route to low - carbon transport: by dropping in exactly where fossil fuels are used now, they can reduce emissions dramatically without the need for major new infrastructure or changes in consumer behaviour, which may be decisive in certain cases.

Climate change science makes it clear that addressing climate change will require us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 % by 2050 and a growing number of jurisdictions (e.g., Ontario, Quebec) have now formally adopted this target.

All models are now fitted with an 8 - speed automatic transmission as standard, and the fuel consumption and exhaust emissions of the new BMW 7 Series have been reduced by up to 25 percent, depending on the engine variant.

Volkswagen says fuel consumption across the board has been reduced by up to 28 per cent, with emissions now meeting Euro - 5 standards.

By introducing it to the Discovery Sport, we can now offer enhanced fuel economy and reduced CO2 emissions, while improving overall performance.

o a target of cutting CO2 emissions by 25 % (now 35 %) per passenger journey by 2012 o a 10 - point plan to reduce all other environmental impacts o a commitment to neutralise the carbon from all passenger journeys from the date of Eurostar's move to St Pancras International (14 November 2007), by offsetting them through investment in projects that reduce the same amount of CO2

The trading system has created a healthy carbon market now worth 56 billion US dollars, and has reduced Europe's emissions by 50 - 100 million metric tons a year since 2005.

In the report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's top scientists warned that global warming is unequivocally man - made and will become irreversible if we do not act now to reduce the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere.

I was wondering for some time now, how much the findings of the work of scientists, be it the IPCC, be it the PIK in Potsdam or what have you, can be taken for granted in order for policy makers to make valuable decisions (e.g. cutting carbon emissions by half by 2050) and if the uncertainties in the models might outweigh certain decisions to reduce carbon emissions so that in the end it might happen that these uncertainties make these decisions obsolete, because they do not suffice to avoid «dangerous climate change»?

So I take him to mean that we have to «start» seroiusly to reduce emissions somewhere between now and 10 years, not by 10 years from the present.

Now it is clear human drive the climate change and human can slow down it by action to reduce greenhouse gas emission.

According to a new poll released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a majority of voters in six moderate to conservative congressional districts now believe global warming to be the top environmental problem and favor immediate actions to reduce carbon emissions.

It also reveals the portion of that budget that developed countries would consume (along the blue emissions path)-- assuming they undertake fairly strenuous mitigation efforts, sufficient to cut emissions 50 % between now and 2020, continue to reduce by 10 % annually in the ensuing decades, and then wholly eliminate emissions by 2050.

Copenhagen — Delegates left the Bali climate change talks in December 2007 with high hopes that a grand bargain on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be secured by now.

So what architects do well: realization of a built structure and environment by integrating different needs, desires, and constrains, can now be quantifiable into not just how many more apartment units they help to sell, but how many tons of carbon emission they help to reduce and how that brings in certain financial return.

«Even though EU policy has managed to reduce CO2 emissions domestically,» Peiser notes, «this was only achieved by shifting energy - intensive and heavy industries overseas: to locations where there are no stringent emission limits, where energy and labour is cheap and which are now growing much faster than the EU.»

If we do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, scientists project that global sea level could rise as much as nearly two feet (59 centimeters) over recent average levels by the end of this century.14, 15 If, on the other hand, we make significant efforts to reduce heat - trapping emissions, sea - level rise between now and the end of the century could be limited to at most 1.25 feet (38 centimeters).14, 15

Right now, hopes for such policies are largely represented by the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce emissions from the power sector 32 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Large - scale defences are now being marshalled by governments, NGOs, scientists and investors, chief among them an international endeavour known as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD.

It says it will now achieve its 5 % emissions reduction target, compared with 2000 levels, by 2020 with its Direct Action policy, which will offer competitive grants over the next four years to companies and organisations that voluntarily reduce emissions.

We hope that by joining a UN level international campaign we will encourage other organisations to understand the vital importance of measuring, reducing and offsetting carbon emissions to help tackle climate change now.»

«Now we are beginning to realize that our growing green infrastructure is a valuable tool in reducing the amount of harmful carbon in our atmosphere not only by helping to reduce overall carbon emissions, but also by capturing existing carbon already produced.»

Many opponents of climate change policies argue that countries like the United States should not have to reduce their ghg emissions until China reduces its emissions by comparable amounts because China is now the largest emitter of all nations in terms of total tons, yet such an argument usually ignores the historical responsibility of countries like the United States which the following illustration reveals is more than twice as responsible for current elevated atmospheric ghg concentrations than China is.

We now know that for a decade the Howard Government's policies have been not so much influenced but actually written by a tiny cabal of powerful fossil fuel lobbyists representing the very corporations whose commercial interests would be affected by any move to reduce Australia's burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions.

It's very clear (thanks to Steve M, Willis etc) that there are issues with both but given the current hyped claim by the «warmers» that the past effects of man - caused global warming have largely been masked by the warming of the oceans and that unless we reduce CO2 emissions now that we won't be able to mitigate future global warming when this «stored heat» eventually comes back out of the oceans and leads to catastrophic effects, I'm very interested in getting to the punchline of this debate on SSTs.

A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions, by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.

Thus, these charts help explain both why the US commitment to reduce its ghg emissions by 17 % below 2005 as well as targets that have been set by even those US states which have shown some leadership on climate change must now be understood as utterly inadequate in light of the most recent climate change science.

Let me put it this way: do you believe there is dangerous man - made global warming happening right now, that we have to alter Western industrial civilization to correct, by reducing CO2 emissions below 350 ppm?

We need to reduce Europe's emissions by 95 % by 2050 and we need to start now.

One of India's largest industrial conglomerates, Mahindra Group, is leading by example with the announcement that an additional 11 of its companies are now committed to set science - based targets to reduce their emissions, in line with the level of decarbonization required to keep global temperature increase below 2 °C.

Firstly, we know more about how rising temperatures will reduce the effectiveness of carbon sinks: the science now tells us that for any given level of emissions, concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and temperatures will increase by more than the RCEP report anticipated.

WWF: Corporate leadership is moving to match climate science; now we need governments to do their part (Gothenburg, Sweden, 7 May, 2015): WWF's flag ship business programme Climate Savers is marking 15 years of corporate leadership in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by introducing a new measuring standard, reflecting the global shift in the role of business in fighting climate... Read More»

The company is now committed to reduce direct (scope 1) and indirect (scope 2) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 60 % by 2025, using a 2015 base - year.

The final version of the rule — now being challenged by the Trump administration — would reduce national electricity sector emissions by an estimated 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

In order to keep temperatures within this range, the IPCCâ $ ™ s Fourth Assessment Report argues that global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must start declining by 2015.2 For industrialized countries, which are responsible for most of the GHGs already in the atmosphere, this implies implementing drastic cuts immediately; the latest IPCC Report suggests that compared to 1990 levels, industrialized countries might have to reduce their emissions by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 and 80 to 95 per cent by 2050.3 Thus, there is little time left to avoid the worst impacts of climate changeâ $» ambitious action is required now.

That threat, however, may now be mitigated by the potential for payments for REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) allowing companies and environmental groups to fund forest conservation by earning carbon credits for saving trees.

Of course, if humans started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 % a year right now, the end of the century challenge would be to take 150 billion tonnes from the atmosphere, and most of this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System Dynamics.

Europe now has the opportunity to improve aviation pollution rules by asking airlines to pay for and reduce their emissions like everyone else.

Assuming the IPCC's value for climate sensitivity (i.e. disregarding the recent scientific literature) and completely stopping all carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. between now and the year 2050 and keeping them at zero, will only reduce the amount of global warming by just over a tenth of a degree (out of a total projected rise of 2.619 °C between 2010 and 2100).

Climate change science makes it clear that addressing climate change will require us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 % by 2050 and a growing number of jurisdictions (e.g., Ontario, Quebec) have now formally adopted this target.