Sentences with phrase «co2 emissions issue»

Most of the global CO2 emissions issue could be solved with low cost nuclear power (low cost nuclear will replace, over the course of this century, fossil fuels for electricity generation which will then displace gas for heating and produce «energy carriers» to replace fossil fuels for transport fuels).

On a global scale, the global fuel supply / CO2 emissions issue will get (a lot) worse before it gets any better.

But, if you assume that there is such thing as «clean coal» and ignore CO2 emission issues, are you not simply pretending that there is no ecological crisis?

Not exact matches

COPENHAGEN — The economic outlook may be daunting, and everyone in Copenhagen agrees on the need to cut CO2 emissions, but just how to stimulate investment in low - carbon technologies is a long - standing and contentious issue.

China is following suit, according to a news story in the same issue of Science, launching the Erdos coal - to - liquid plant in Inner Mongolia that will capture some of its 3.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions and use it to flush out oil from nearby fields.

Both offer performance in line with Infiniti's image, but their high CO2 emissions and poor fuel economy issues mean the QX50 is destined to remain a niche model.

There are people out there working on solving the problems with the lifestyle issues (I'm working with a group of co-workers on solving power grid issues) and guess what — dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions can be had while maintaining, or even improving, quality - of - life.

However, the FAO's most recent study offers some perspective on this issue, attributing 5 percent of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to livestock (pg.

Over the years, IPCC has issued numerous scenarios describing the trajectory of civilization and what they may mean for CO2 emissions and the like.

MA: Munshi then ventures briefly into the issue of calibration of satellite data and in so doing, badly misrepresents Nerem et al (2018) and adds a little Victor - the - Trollishness by plotting 25 - year SLR trends against annual FF CO2 emissions.

If CO2 emissions are such an issue, don't do it!!!! Let's not start suing companies, and trying to get governments to impose laws and taxes — just stop.

A few issues raised have been legitimate, such as leebert's information about the effects of soot - which remain controversial, and (as he pointed out) do not impact the need to reduce CO2 emissions.

A similar issue arises when we attempt to evaluate the so - called «hiatus» of the 21st century, where we clearly see a major slowdown in temperature increase compared with the previous 20 years, during a period when CO2 emissions were soaring.

Perhaps this isn't an issue because it would take an impossibly large amount of CO2 [and water vapour] for the emission altitude to reach the tropopause, but it's an aspect of this sort of explanation that I haven't been able to work out in my head.

CO2 emissions are only part of the issue.

This article includes all four of the main causal issues converging on our future (not - so - distant): CO2 emissions, energy, population growth, and how people will respond (psychology).

Finally, here's Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, the University of Chicago climate scientist (and now also purveyor of the greenhouse blues) who in 2010 broached the issue of «who owns the CO2 emissions» when coal moves between countries:

All of this is reason for everyone and his brother, aunt and sister to greatly reduce their own GHG emissions, and to scream bloody murder till every corporation, institution and governmental body they have any influence over to immediately institute policies to rapidly bring down GHG emissions and look at reliable ways of drawing down atmospheric CO2 levels directly (especially replanting grasslands in the north, tree planting toward the equator where albedo change is not an issue).

Moreover, these issues must be far better resolved if there is to be an adequate verification scheme to confirm national performance in meeting targets for CO2 emissions.

Well I'm not a scientist and I have issues with the IPCC reports and predictions but I also believe that humans are impacting our environment in more ways than just CO2 emissions.

EPA has, accordingly, regulated CO2 emissions from cars, trucks, smokestacks as a whole under certain general circumstances (via a particular program called «Prevention of Significant Deterioration» that you do not want to know any more about) and is about to start — with power plants — issuing specific regulations for each individual «category» of smokestacks.

The EPA appeals board, in a historical understatement, said: «In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding.»

They suggest drastic measures that would reduce the rate of CO2 emissions to that of 30 years ago as a solution while failing to show their logic flaws such as how if global warming was an issue 30 years ago, then how could us going back to the level of emissions then solve anything?

The issue with fossil fuel depletion occurring at the same time as CO2 is accelerating is that these low grades of coal, kerogen, and bitumen will only magnify the CO2 emissions.

However, such plants cause more environmental harm and health issues due to air pollution, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.

In the power sector, EPA recently issued CO2 regulations for new power plants that can not be met using coal unless the resulting emissions are captured.

Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor - cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate - impact substance.

In addition to the text of the proposed rule, EPA issued a Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan, 4 along with numerous technical supporting documents and fact sheets.5 In October 2014, EPA issued a notice of data availability, which provided discussion and solicited additional comment on several topic areas, including the 2020 - 29 compliance trajectories.6 Also in October 2014, EPA issued a supplemental proposal to address carbon pollution from affected power plants in Indian Country and U.S. territories.7 In November 2014, EPA issued an additional technical support document providing examples of how a state could translate its rate - based goal into an equivalent mass - based goal, expressed in metric tons of CO2.8 In November 2014, EPA also issued a memo addressing biogenic CO2 emissions from stationary sources that explicitly relates this topic to the implementation of the Clean Power Plan.9

You may believe that it has nothing to do with the study of the impact of additional CO2 on the environment, but for many other scientists who are studying the issue and advocating that policies be implemented to reduce CO2 emissions; it is certainly true.

Human emissions are a tiny fraction of the annual CO2 flux so it is not a trivial issue.

Global Warming, Climate Change, AGW, Carbon Budget, Carbon Cycle, Methodological Issues, Circular Reasoning, Bias in Research Methodology, IPCC, Fossil Fue Emissions, Cumulative Emissions, Atmospheric CO2, Climate Sensitivity, Spurious Correlations, Detrended Correlation

The MEF, which has hosted productive discussions among 17 key countries and regions that together account for nearly 90 percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, may be somewhat limited by the fact that is was created by and is chaired by the United States, a nation with constrained credibility on climate issues among some countries, particularly in the developing world.

But this confuses the issue because it is also dependent on expected CO2 emissions forecasts.

This is all well and good, but CO2 is a global issue, both from the emissions and the impacts perspectives.

At least four elite scientific organizations have issued public statements favoring the idea that human emissions of CO2 do drive recent global temperature rises:

A pure play in the «Cleantech» sector, CO2 Solutions is attracting knowledgeable and responsible shareholders who believe that the necessity for innovative, cost - effective solutions for the reduction of CO2 emissions is becoming increasingly necessary if we are to responsibly address accelerating climate change issues.

The platform also contains the following vague and ambiguous promise: «A Conservative government will... address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), with a made - in - Canada plan, emphasising new technologies, developed in concert with the provinces and in coordination with other major industrial countries.»

The «pollution paradigm» of climate change limits the opportunities for addressing or solving the issue, in part because fossil fuel emissions make up such a small fraction of the annual flux of CO2 into the atmosphere (less than 3 %).

The chemical industry has created solutions to many sustainability issues over the course of modern history, and Matt believes that a transparent market - based price on CO2 emissions is the signal the chemical industry needs to once again rise to the challenge of solving the great 21st Century sustainability issue that is climate change.

The central issue is whether or not you believe there is data to show that increasing CO2 emissions will result in a catastrophe for humanity or not.

I know you don't agree with those points, but a question for you, Lionell — if you were to believe (just as a what - if) that our CO2 emissions were going to cause these problems, what, in your political framework, would be the right way to approach the issue?

Trump issued an executive order dismantling the Clean Power Plan, which slashed CO2 emissions from power plants and repealed efforts to reduce methane releases from oilfields.

This paper examines the implications for U.S. fossil fuel production and global CO2 emissions of ceasing to issue new federal leases for fossil fuel extraction and not renewing existing leases for resources that are not yet producing.

One thing that is different about the climate change issue is that most of the uncertainty is in when rather than if CO2 emissions will cause serious environmental and economic damage.

It's correct I have written posts on single technologies and single issues: nuclear, solar, wind, «CO2 emissions avoided by wind power», «what is risk — a simple explanation», transmission, etc..

One further issue you need to explain is why CO2 is still increasing in virtually perfect correlation with mans emissions even though you guys argue that heating has stopped for 15/16 years.

This is a core issue; if the CO2 increase is not due to human emissions either in part or at all then AGW is dead; that is why Salby's work was relevant; it also has important implications for how the climate cycle works.

Thus, for the sake of simplicity, we focus on CO2 alone, and do not consider the issue of what fraction of these long - term emissions might be made up of N2O, although we note that, in several other papers considering the impact of emissions over the very long term, this fraction is substantial.

In an effort to address the issue, one lawmaker, Marcela Guerrero, of the governing Citizen Action Party, last month presented a bill to lift import duties on electric vehicles for five years and to encourage ownership of CO2 emission - free cars.

If you try to link it to the issue of AGW in order to reduce consumption of oil and thereby reduce emission of CO2 it becomes an issue of the «efficiency of the proposed tax system»; both in terms of collection of revenues and in achieving the stated goal of reducing emissions of CO2.