Sentences with phrase «fueling climate change does»
«Fueling climate change does not help public health, safety and welfare.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ Not exact matches
«You don't even need to believe in climate change and carbon and all that stuff,» says Keller, who supports a mandatory 10 - to 15 - year phaseout of fossil - fuel imports.
The first is climate change, exacerbated by the greenhouse gases we encourage by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and farming the way we do (particularly for meat production).
Indeed, notwithstanding Ontario's emphasis on green initiatives — fuel - efficient car production, wind power, the closing of coal - fired generating stations — climate change is the great battle of the present and future, one that neither Ontario nor any other jurisdiction is doing enough to fight.
House Democrats, led by Reps. Ted Lieu of California and Peter Welch of Vermont, also announced Thursday they are planning a broader probe into when other energy companies first understood that fossil fuels drive climate change, what they did with that information and whether they funded or participated in sowing doubt about the matter.
While axing a tax on the fuel Albertans produce is popular, much of the energy sector appears reasonably happy a provincial government is doing things to erase Alberta's old image as an environmental laggard; last month, oil sands heavyweights Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. talked up Alberta's new environmental efforts to European investors, and their executives joined Notley on stage when the climate change plan and carbon tax were first announced.
I'd like to think we did it because we didn't want to press our luck anymore, because repairs cost more than the Blue Book said you were worth, because you didn't have anti-lock brakes or passenger - side airbags, because we really couldn't have you breaking down on a late - night drive home from the airport or on a busy interstate, because of fuel economy and our deepening concern over climate change.
We want to do our part to reduce our carbon emissions from fossil fuel consumption in order to help prevent the worst effects of climate change.
There is an overlying awareness when assessing New York's environmentally progressive work - in - progress that the effects climate change and fossil fuel energy industries have on the environment, infrastructure and public health don't stop at state lines.
The sad part is - there are several valid benefits from reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, that have nothing to do with climate change.
«Divesting from fossil fuel stocks doesn't solve the problem, but it sends a huge message that government and its citizens should not be investing in the type of fuel that we know increase the problems we face rather than decrease and reverse the outcome of climate change.»
«Does he recognise that while other countries have spent the last decade diversifying their supplies of energy, Britain has become even more dependent on imported fossil fuels - threatening our energy security, our economic competitiveness, and our climate change objectives?»
I think there's a lot the states can do — and I applaud state leadership and private sector leadership on this — but the reality is, not only do we have the Trump administration rolling back important climate change reduction rules, but they're proactively promoting fossil fuel development.
Furthermore the proceeds of the CCL do not all go to direct subsidy of wind farms; Greg Barker, the Climate Change Secretary, was on Newsnight last Friday and he stated that «almost 2 / 3rds» of the money raised from the CCL is spent on increasing «energy efficiency and fuel poverty programs».
«I applied for the fellowship, because my research both in climate change and bio fuel has always been extremely applied, and I didn't have a strong background in policy.
«A grandstand play, put on by people who don't like Trump or the GOP, regardless, that has nothing to do with climate change, alternative fuels or any other science.
The land use doesn't change, and the reduction of fossil fuels adds to the climate mitigation potential.
It remains unclear, however, how much such passenger - funded partnerships do to alleviate climate change and they are a poor substitute for a carbon - neutral alternative jet fuel.
«While there is no one silver bullet technology to end climate change, using direct air capture to make fuels is potentially scalable, in a way that biofuels aren't, because it doesn't use much land or other resources,» he says.
«We're lucky climate change didn't happen sooner: Naturally occurring carbon dioxide concentrations gave humankind time to face up to fossil fuels» impact.»
If the world keeps burning fossil fuels and does little else to prevent climate change — the trajectory we are on — weather events now considered extreme, like the one in 1997 which led to floods so severe that hundreds of thousands of people in Africa were displaced, and the one in 2009 that led to the worst droughts and bushfires in Australia's history, will become average by 2050.
«Agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human - caused climate change,» he said in an email.
But fossil fuels development and loss of vegetation does have a big effect on how a region responds and adapts to a changing climate because of the water stress it creates where drilling is occurring.
«The Lancet report underscores the terrible consequences for human health if we don't start reducing the dangerous carbon pollution fueling climate change — and dramatic benefits for people the world over from taking action now,» echoed Kim Knowlton, senior scientist and deputy director of the Science Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a release.
«CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry did not really change from 2014 to 2016,» says climate scientist Pierre Friedlingstein at the University of Exeter in England, and an author of the 2017 carbon budget report released by the Global Carbon Project in November.
The threat of climate change means that there is an urgent need to find cleaner, renewable alternatives to fossil fuels that do not contribute extensive amounts of greenhouse gases with potentially devastating consequences on our ecosystem.
«Agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human - caused climate change.
It will be «ugly» but it's inevitable that either a microbe or climate change or mismanagement of earth's fossil fuels will do to humans what similar forces have done periodically to every species on terra firma.
Carol M. Browner, the new White House coordinator for climate and energy, is a seasoned environmental regulator and campaigner who has focused on cap - and - trade legislation, which would steadily raise the cost of unfettered fossil - fuel use, and rule - making as driving the necessary change (as they did with the 20th - century basket of air pollutants).
What I find ironic is that it is his can - do optimism that is in this case working against our ability to do something about our dependence on fossil fuels and the climate change that this dependence is resulting in, that is, switching to alternate energy, preserving modern civilization and the world economy beyond Peak Oil and Peak Coal, preventing climate change from becoming such a huge problem that it destroys that the world economy — and more than likely leads to a series of highly destructive wars over limited resources.
They have very little to do with the long term trend (driven by fossil fuel burning) but are important for understanding the sensitivity of the carbon cycle to changes in climate.
A party from which the loudest and most influencial voices either do not attribute climate change to man's activities, deny there are any changes happening at all, and / or are unwilling to do anything that taxes fossil fuel emissions.
She said that the analysis she and co-authors did for a paper on «irreversible climate change» helped lead her, as a non-expert citizen when considering energy technology, to conclude that such research is vital, even as efforts are made to find successors to fossil fuels.
you seem to refer to two very different problems: the possible fading of the industrial society because we don't have a good alternative to fossil fuels (which would happen even without GH effect), and the threat of a climate change (which could happen even if we found an alternative to fossil fuels, if there are in very large amount and we are too late to replace them).
When you add up that there is more methane being emitted than E.P.A. has estimated, that methane is responsible for up to half of all the greenhouse gas emissions for the entire US, and that each unit of methane emitted is far more important in causing global climate change over the critical few decades ahead, it should be clear that bridge - fuel argument just doesn't hold up.
It didn't really work for sulfur, and will surely not work for fossil CO2 and long - term climate change, because for that question, it doesn't matter where on the planet you burn fossil fuels, as CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere.
I find that even some of my most informed friends, people who explain to me what really happened with various space and aircraft disasters based on their own critical review of the available information on the subject, have problems discussing topics like global climate change, the end of oil as a fuel, because they haven't even asked some obvious questions, much less done any research.
«Researching Don't Even Think About It, which I see as the most important book published on climate change in the past few years, George Marshall discovered that there has not been a single proposal, debate or even position paper on limiting fossil fuel production put forward during international climate negotiations.
Professor Curry wrote, «If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.»
If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.
You do take funds from fossil fuel companies for your skeptic «research» in order to distract, obfuscate, and confuse voters into thinking climate change is not happening or that it isn't the fault of us humans.
«Climate change is severely impacting the health of our planet and all of its inhabitants, and we must transition to a clean energy economy that does not rely on fossil fuels, the main driver of this global problem.»
The grant to Columbia Journalism School was directed at «public interest research into what the fossil fuel industry understood about the science of climate change and how they acted given that understanding both internally and regarding the public,» but it did not target Exxon Mobil specifically, Wasserman said.»
Anyone who is, for example, a mining consultant should not be barred from doing statistical analysis related to climate change because they might have an association with fossil fuels...
Reblogged this on Climate Collections and commented: Executive Summary: If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I [JC] don't see a near term alternative to nClimate Collections and commented: Executive Summary: If you accept the premise that human caused climate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I [JC] don't see a near term alternative to nclimate change is dangerous and that we need to rapidly stop burning fossil fuels, then I [JC] don't see a near term alternative to nuclear.
Anyone who is, for example, a mining consultant should not be barred from doing statistical analysis related to climate change because they might have an association with fossil fuels, but should this information be plastered on the front of their comments?
They found that climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and nuclear energy often did not take up much space in these books, despite having «implications on introductory - level science education, the public perception of science and an informed citizenship,» Rittman said.
The fossil fuel industry has gotten us into this climate mess, and listening to their advice is almost certainly going to lead to false solutions that do not result in the changes to society and emissions levels that are needed.
Carbon Emissions Set to Rise Steadily with Fossil Fuel Use But, IEA indicates, Ways to Halt Climate Change Do Exist 21 November 2000
A climate science which is «uncertain» can still show that climate change is a «serious, pressing threat», since «threat» imports uncertainty, and also still allow for the proposition that human combustion of fossil fuels does not significantly cause that climate change nor contribute to that threat.