Sentences with phrase «ghg emissions changes»

Rensfeldt, Arvid and Pariyawong, Vorapat and Fujii, Hidemichi (2015): Corporate environmental management and GHG emissions changes: Empirical study of multinational automobile companies.

We found that GHG emission changes range from a 23 percent reduction to a 36 percent increase over the Tiida.

Not exact matches

Impact on oil and gas production: compared to a carbon tax, Alberta's policy offers emitters less of an incentive to reduce production in order to cut GHGs, notes Leach: «assuming that the facility reduced production by 10 percent, and that emissions decreased proportionately (a simplifying assumption), the facility's emissions intensity would not change, so its carbon liability per barrel of oil produced would also remain constant.»

The research organization Oil Change International and other research organizations have concluded that, because of this high GHG emission feature, in order to meet our Paris Accord commitment (and save a habitable planet for future generations) 80 % of the Tar Sands must «stay in the ground».

By Linda Hasenfratz and Hal Kvisle Published in the Hill Times — December 13, 2010 Despite clear signs of progress in building an international consensus, the outcome of the latest round of UN climate change negotiations in Cancun appears to have fallen short of the target: a clear and comprehensive plan to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

How can it be that blocking the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — which, if built, will almost assuredly increase the GHG emissions from Alberta's oil sands — would undermine Canada's climate change plan?

How else could he argue, as he did recently in a Maclean's opinion piece, that blocking the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — and along with it, increased GHG emissions from Alberta's oil sands — would jeopardize Canada's climate change plan and make it impossible to meet our emissions reduction target under the UN Paris Agreement?

Although red meat made the greatest contribution to GHG emissions, since average intakes are consistent with the Australian dietary guidelines, no change in intake was required to meet dietary recommendations.

With increased attention to climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and offsets, the goal of the project partners is to provide a free, easy - to - use, wine industry specific, greenhouse gas (GHG) protocol and calculator that will measure the carbon footprints of winery and vineyard operations of all sizes.

We focus on ruminant livestock since it has the highest emissions intensity across food sectors... While shifting consumption patterns in wealthy countries from imported to domestic livestock products reduces GHG emissions associated with international trade and transport activity, we find that these transport emissions reductions are swamped by changes in global emissions due to differences in GHG emissions intensities of production.

A new report by the National Research Council finds that in terms of the scale of GHG emissions reductions required to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, the U.S.

It comes following the decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw the USA from the 2015 Paris Accord on climate change, which commits its signatories to actively work on reducing their GHG emissions.

The news of the increase in U.S. human - caused GHG emissions comes at a critical moment in the global battle against climate change, particularly after the International Energy Agency announced last month that global carbon emissions related to energy consumption have stabilized for the first time in a growing economy.

The member states of the European Union report their GHG emissions and removals to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the European Commission annually.

A new study, published today in Nature Climate Change, suggests that — if current trends continue — food production alone will reach, if not exceed, the global targets for total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2050.

The Kyoto Protocol is seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and can provide the architecture for the future international agreement on climate change.

In this earth system model, human belief systems and corresponding climate governance will drive anthropogenic GHG emissions that force the climate system, while the magnitude of climate change and related extreme events will influence human perception of associated risk.

The International Energy Agency for example, reckons that the magic of energy efficiency can achieve 49 per cent of the GHG emission reductions needed by 2030 to avoid catastrophic changes in global temperature.

Extreme weather events or nonstationary climate change that is outside of an individual's experience of normality can shift IMMs and CBSs, ultimately influencing policy, climate governance, and GHG emissions.

Normalized well - to - wake GHG emissions for low -, baseline - and high - emission cases for jet fuel pathways under different land use change scenarios.

Thus, we conclude that 20th - century land - use changes contributed more to forcing observed regional climate change during the summer in the central United States than increasing GHG emissions.

Comprehensive efforts to constrain the impacts of climate change will require significant global cooperation to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) supports its borrowing member countries adapt to climate change impacts and reduce GHG emissions through lending operations, technical cooperation, and knowledge generation.

CO2 accounts for more than 80 % of the added GHG forcing in the past 15 years [64], [167] and, if fossil fuel emissions continue at a high level, CO2 will be the dominant driver of future global temperature change.

Also, if rapidly declining GHG emissions are achieved, changes of solar forcing will become relatively more important.

«Policy changes aimed at mitigating GHG emissions affect not only the stability of the climate, but also other environmental aspects and resource use, positively or negatively,» the IRP co-chair, Janez Potoènik, said.

Releasing its Ten Messages on Climate Change today, the International Resource Panel (IRP) said natural resource management and climate change were intrinsically linked, with a large part of global energy use, and therefore greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, tied directly to the acquisition, processing, transport, conversion, use and disposal of resoChange today, the International Resource Panel (IRP) said natural resource management and climate change were intrinsically linked, with a large part of global energy use, and therefore greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, tied directly to the acquisition, processing, transport, conversion, use and disposal of resochange were intrinsically linked, with a large part of global energy use, and therefore greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, tied directly to the acquisition, processing, transport, conversion, use and disposal of resources.

The Center promotes comprehensive multimodal approaches to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the effects of climate change on the transportation system, while advancing DOT's core goals of safety, mobility, environmental stewardship, and security.

The transportation sector, as one of the largest and fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, is becoming a major policy focus for addressing climate change.

Responding to legislation, executive action, and international agreements on climate change, DOT aims to secure economic and social benefits of transportation while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

This webpage provides access to most recent data on national GHG emissions and removals for countries that are Parties to the Climate Change Convention, countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and organizations that have information on GHG emissions / removals.

I propose that in order to reduce the risk of serious, systemic change, that we reduce GHG emissions.

The use of incentives and investment to spur intensified research on nonpolluting energy choices is not going reduce GHG emissions by 80 % by 2050, which is what the vast majority of scientists say is needed to avert the worst impacts of climate change on human health and the environment.

It should be sufficient to potentially change some poeple's beliefs / opinions and their future behavior / responses about ghg feedbacks driven by the arctic regions as temperatures and ghg emissions continue to rise the next 25 years at least with NO CH4 + CO2 feedback mechanisms.

What we have here is a situation in which MM05 attempts to make a point to discredit climate warming which — even if they were correct — would not affect the indicated existence of human forcing of climate via GHG emissions / land use changes occurring now.

If «The most extreme scenario postulated in TAR» is almost solely dependent on GHG emissions, why would the introduction of aerosol effects not change the results?

The most encouraging thing for me to come from this paper is not the variance in percieved GHG and related forcing levels that may or may not constitute Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference, but the acknowledgement of the rate of change in emissions due to fuel price increases and the exponential growth of public awareness.

In April 2011, my colleagues Tony Ingraffea, Renee Santoro, and I published the first comprehensive analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shale gas obtained by hydraulic fracturing, with a focus on methane emissions, in the journal Climatic Change Letters.

Reliance on global CCS into deep wells to reduce GHG emissions into the atmosphere and effectively addressing the human - induced sources and consequences of global warming and climate change is pure «Greenwash.»

Further, the two examples required no personal sacrifice or change of lifestyle on the part of the general population (concerned or otherwise), which seems to be unavoidable to curb emissions of GHG's.

Climate models suggest that global GHG emissions must fall by 75 — 90 percent by 2050, compared with 2010 levels, to provide the best chance of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

China and other globalizing countries with little or no environmental regulation expand coal fired power and automobile usage accelerating GHG emissions and thus accelerating global climate change.

If we're going to address climate change, it's going to start with solutions experts agree on (efficiency, low - GHG sources such as nuclear, carbon capture and storage, wind, geothermal, cellulosic biofuels, and eventually solar), and processes that experts agree on (increasing the cost of GHG emissions, funding more R&D, mandates sometimes).

Why don't you take up an earlier suggestion from Ross McKitrick and endorse (in summary here) that GHG emissions be taxed proportional to the actual global temperature change?

This seems highly unwise, and, as I discussed in a piece on HuffPost about it, «Methane in the Twilight Zone, Episode 2,» * the more that you're planning on doing anything about climate change — i.e., lowering GHG emissions, pulling carbon out of the system through biochar, afforestation, etc — the less sense it makes.

In my case, I cut my household GHG emissions by about two - thirds, from a relatively frugal base, with four changes: replaced an older car with a Prius, stopped buying grain - fed meat, bought wind power from my local electric utility, moved to a house with a ground - source heatpump.

After 2050, climate change becomes the biggest threat, unless something is done sooner rather than later about reduce GHG emissions.

While CO2 atmospheric concentration undeniably remains the main driver of climate change, CO2 is not the only GHG, and peaking and reducing CO2 emissions is not the ONLY policy being discussed.

Any program that reduces current emissions by some percent but doesn't contribute to cutting long - term atmospheric GHGs will not produce tangible climate change benefits except the lame claim that «things would be even worse» if we do nothing.

Now we are told that preventing dangerous climate change, requires GHG emission cuts which must be fabulously costly — and that (by the way) there is a 10 % chance that GHG emissions are not responsible for climate change.