Sentences with phrase «co2 as a resource»

Liquid Light is not alone in looking at CO2 as a resource.

Connell, Sean; Kroeker, Kristy; Fabricius, Katharina; Kline, David; Russell, Bayden We explore how ocean acidification combines with complex environmental changes across a number of scales, highlight the multiplicity of factors and complexities that cause variation, and raise awareness of CO2 as a resource whose change in availability could have wide ranging community consequences beyond its direct effects.

The other ocean acidification problem: CO2 as a resource among competitors for ecosystem dominance

Bill McDonough, an architect of the Cradle - to - Cradle certification, has launched a campaign to get businesses to think about CO2 as a resource and an asset for their supply chains.

Not exact matches

As a former climate change minister I wonder if he sees the link between Britain's CO2 emissions, the depletion of resources and the predicted immigration led rise in our population of 10m?

Although carbon capture and storage has attracted a growing number of advocates, including environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, it has also attracted its fair share of detractors, such as Greenpeace, and skeptics including the U.S. Geological Survey's Yousif Kharaka (pdf), who has shown that leaking CO2 can make surrounding water acidic, mix with brine and leach metals, and pose potential health risks to people and wildlife.

ECO2 developed a generic approach for estimating consequences, probability and risk associated with sub-seabed CO2 storage based on the assessment of the environmental value of local organisms as indicated for example by the Natura 2000 network of nature protection areas or the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North - East Atlantic (OSPAR), the vulnerability of environmental resources and possible impacts on them as well as consequences and risks.

Overall, I have yet to see anyone rebut the simple calculations of Vaclav Smil, the resource and risk polymath at the University of Manitoba, who has shown how capturing and processing just a small percentage of today's CO2 from coal combustion would require as much pipeline and other infrastructure as is now used globally to get oil — a costly commodity — out of the ground.

As oil resources peak, coal will determine future CO2 levels.

Note that, paradoxically, low - resource cases will have higher annual CO2 emissions in the near term, sinply due to the use of coal as a substitute for oil and gas.

I believe that a major source of funds for CO2 mitigation would come from resources otherwise committed to business - as - usual energy production.

This would serve multiple purposes, of (a) weaning us from dependence on foreign oil and simultaneously depleting terror - exporting countries of their revenue stream, (b) reducing other pollutants besides CO2, (c) encouraging a more gradual and less economically disastrous transition from an economony based on a finite resource, (d) slow global warming, (e) move us in the direction of a VAT tax rather than an income tax (actually, personally I don't think e is such a great thing, but as many conversative groups favor it, I don't see why they would oppose a revenue - neutral tax on fossil fuels.

It is, however, a fact that coal is at least on a par with the oil sands resources as far as detriment to the CO2 environment, and there is vast and growing rate of usage of this.

If Dr. Hansen never imagined Scenario A as being a real possibility for the next 20 years, I guess indicated by his description «Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns, even though the growth of emissions in Scenario A (~ 1.5 % yr - 1) is less than the rate typical of the past century (~ 4 % yr - 1)» then his subsequent comment (PNAS, 2001) «Second, the IPCC includes CO2 growth rates that we contend are unrealistically large» seems to indicate that Dr. Hansen doesn't support some of the more extreme SRES scenarios.

Food forests do however make sense to me as a food resource system, and means of absorbing CO2, and fruit trees last more than 30 years.

Regardless of reserve and resource uncertainties, we know there are enough fossil fuels to destroy the planet as we know it, if their CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

According to data from the World Resources Institute (as you can see in the chart below), the fires alone emitted more CO2 than the average daily emissions of the U.S. for most of the days in October, as well as a nearly half of days in September.

And, since the whole problem with CO2 buildup actually stems from burning hydrocarbons in the first place, you end up with exactly the same result as if you used oil, only at a greater cost of resources.

While stabilizing climate and reducing CO2 emissions is not an easy task, we have the technologies, economic instruments, and financial resources to do so, as I outline in Plan B 2.0.

And while recent studies from entities such as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration have shown that the Clean Power Plan is still needed to drive the development of additional clean energy and energy efficiency resources in order to achieve significant nationwide CO2 reductions, it appears that the costs of compliance compared to a business - as - usual case will continue to fall — and may even be offset by the significant benefits the Clean Power Plan can offer.

On the subject of North Sea Oil, the UK government actually see's great opportunity in the vacant reservoirs for storing CO2 from CCS which would preserve some of the 30,000 jobs currently supported by North Sea Oil and which will go down the pan soon as resources deplete.

Tagged as: bees, Camille Puglia, climate, CO2, colony collapse disorder, Feynman, ForestEthics, Freeman Dyson, James Hansen, Joel Kotkin, La Cañada Valley Sun, Mara Hvistendahl, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Geoscience, NRDC, nuclear, Safeway, Supreme Court, tipping points, Trader Joe's, Wall Street Journal, Walmart

«German CO2» was used as a label for CO2 emitted from burning German resources.

In 1937, advocates of technocracy believed that scarcity had been abolished, thereby making economics redundant, whereas the basis for technocracies in 2013 is the idea that in spite of almost another century of economic, industrial and scientific development, scarcity, either in the form of substance, i.e. resources, or as natural processes such as the sequestration of atmospheric CO2, persists.

As a study by Resources for the Future found, there is «no single policy, no silver bullet, [that] will simultaneously and significantly reduce oil consumption and CO2 emissions.»

In addition, coal resources are even larger than those of oil and gas; consuming all of them would enable the global economy to emit 5 times as much CO2 as has been released since 1850 (5,200 GtCO2 or 1,500 GtC)(see Chapter 3 in IPCC, 2001a).

We have also seen over the past 20 years that the IPCC has directed much of its resources, publications, and findings to establish a link between global temperatures and man - made CO2, attempting to portray it as the culprit in global climate change.Stated more clearly (the UN and its agencies are rarely «clear» on anything), the IPCC statement above contains huge and unproven assumptions.

On the contrary, Figure 1 is a conservative estimate of potential emissions from tar sands because: the economically extractable amount grows with technology development and oil price; the total tar sands resource is larger than the known resource, possibly much larger; extraction of tar sands oil uses conventional oil and gas, which will show up as additions to the purple bars in Figure 1; development of tar sands will destroy overlying forest and prairie ecology, emitting biospheric CO2 to the atmosphere.

Online resources and op - ed writers talking about WV as the «most important greenhouse gas» or «CO2 is only 0.033 % of the atmosphere» are misleading simplifications, and I don't think the IPCC explanation is misleading at all.

You're not being real Neil, you consistently disregard scientific findings (like absorptive properties of co2, and the weakening of the earths crust through resource extraction), you're not being real and the worst part is you come across as an intelligent person, this leaves one answer: you have an agenda, you're protecting anthropogenic warming practices.

Existing laws such as renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency resource standards, long - term requirements for additional hydropower and wind power, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caps will require a significant reduction in natural gas - fired generation throughout New England.

The other cause of potential leaks, old «legacy» wells, is also minimal because the deep saline aquifer where Quest's CO2 will be stored has no oil or gas resources and as a result has not seen drilling to any significant extent.

If so should we be putting as many resources into combatting it as we do fighting co2?

From these total inferred fossil fuel resources on our planet we can calculate the amount of CO2 generated (deducting 20 - 25 % of oil and gas used for «non-combustion» uses, such as petrochemicals, fertilizers, etc.).

This is because plants in arid regions already use water more judiciously than in other areas, but increasing CO2 levels also drives them to use scarce water resources more efficiently as well.

It would seem necessary for those supporting CO2 mitigation measures to show that they do make sense as the best use of limited resources.

The Grupp Myers paper I referred to (I don't have the resources to link site it properly but I will) openly admits how the projections by ipcc have been too hot and we can now as I said produce 240 billion tonnes more co2 than we thought.

If the IPCC had directed the same energy and resources to make the sun and natural factors the culprit for climate change as it has with CO2, they'd certainly have a far more convincing case today, and many of the questions it claims are still open would be closed.

Because it produces roughly half the CO2 emissions of coal, natural gas has been considered as a bridge fuel to zero - carbon energy supplies by Al Gore, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Resources for the Future, former Environmental Protection Agency head and former Obama climate chief Carol Browner, and energy experts across the political spectrum.

short answer A bad idea, since (i) they produce CO2 (partly responsible for the rise in global warming), (ii) there is a limited amount of fossil fuel from which we make valuable materials such as lubricants and plastics, (iii) fossil fuel resources are finite, so burning them means we are consuming a resource we can never replace, and (iv) we can actually build new industries and create many new jobs developing renewable sources of energy instead of burning fossil fuels.

In the first study of its kind in the U.S., scientists from the Natural Resources Defense Council and economists studied the health costs of six climate - related disasters that occurred in recent years, and which are likely to worsen as atmospheric CO2 levels climb.

The report updates Synapse's 2012 CO2 price forecast with new data and is intended to be used as a resource for utility integrated resource planning and other electricity planning analyses.

Burning wood, which is celebrated by governments as a sustainable energy resource, actually produces more CO2 emissions than coal.

Natural gas, generally, emits half the amount of CO2 per unit of electricity as oil does, so it makes sense for big petroleum companies to lean on this resource more as a way to position their respective asset mixes as lower carbon and secure an even larger piece of the global carbon budget.

«The tremendous wind resources of the northern Great Plains have many Indian tribes looking at utility scale renewable energy generation as a «no - regrets» sustainable homeland economic development strategy, with a positive impact on CO2 emission reductions.

Odd how so many here go on about energy and CO2 when in fact our problem, as Tom «Do the Math» really points out, is the unsustainable nature of human impact on the planets resources....

And if you regard increasing CO2 as a danger, then the moral imperative is to rank it with other dangers, based on thorough considerations, before diverting resources away from other important projects and enterprises.

We present the model that future atmospheric [CO2] may act as a resource for mat - forming algae, a diverse and widespread group known to reduce the resilience of kelp forests and coral reefs.

CO2 can act as a resource by increasing carbon fixation rates in some photosynthetic organisms.

Order Defendants to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2 so as to stabilize the climate system and protect the vital resources on which Plaintiffs now and in the future will depend...