Sentences with phrase «ghg emissions price»

At a plausible GHG emissions price of $ 50 / t CO2eq under a future US carbon mitigation policy, such co-production systems competing as power suppliers would be able to provide low - GHG - emitting synthetic fuels at the same unit cost as for coal synfuels characterized by ten times the GHG emission rate that are produced in plants having three times the synfuel output capacity and requiring twice the total capital investment.

Not exact matches

This is far from clear: a proper carbon pricing policy would favour firms that are profitable enough to absorb the cost of GHG emissions, and penalise those who can only survive if emissions are not priced.

If your condition for GHG policy is that you must impose the same price on all sectors of the economy because you want to be cost - effective, that rules out higher prices on some sectors where deep emissions reductions are possible, or lower prices in more politically sensitive areas to ensure you get a policy in place at all.

CCS really amounts to a combined GHG and natural gas hedge which, in a world of really expensive gas, allows you to maintain lower electricity prices than you perhaps otherwise would be able to as you can continue to use relatively cheap and plentiful coal while capturing and storing the emissions.

Higher prices give businesses and consumers the incentive to modify energy use and make wise investments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over time.

Finally, CME noted that carbon pricing schemes need to be designed in such a way so as not to merely transfer GHG emissions out of the province (or country).

If we put a price on those emissions of $ 50 - 200 per tonne, reflecting some recent estimates of the external costs of carbon emissions, we get a range of $ 4 - 20 billion in environmental costs just from GHG emissions.

Using corn to produce ethanol has driven up food prices in recent years, and converting forests and other areas into farmland to grow more corn for biofuels may well negate ethanol's improved greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

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.

The price differential between hybrids and fossil fuel cars could be removed at a stroke if sales tax levels were set based on a car's GHG emissions per mile, and this would be likely to make a huge difference to take - up of hybrids — again, the problem is not technology, it is simply lack of political will.

In California, for example, we would recommend using the current market price of carbon GHG emissions (around $ 11 / ton in CA), but this could arguably vary to the / / www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivities/economics/scc.html» > social cost of carbon or other reasonable values.

«Lomborg loves to play the nit - picky «I'm the honest statistician» role and then use this stance to imply that doing much of anything except R&D is a waste, ignoring the huge body of evidence that pricing GHG emissions can have large net benefits.

This brings the price of energy down below current energy costs while saving ghg emissions.

Any form of carbon pricing or regulations means we would have to measure GHG emissions.

These prices do not include the cost of a backup for wind and solar require, or the costs in terms of human health or rising GHG emissions from fossil fuels.

It is impossible for the United States to meet President Obama's highly ambitious schedule for reducing America's GHG emissions unless the US Government takes aggressive action to directly and indirectly put a price on carbon, and to directly and indirectly limit the production, supply, and availability of all carbon fuels.

What more effective approach could there be in meeting President Obama's highly aggressive schedule for reducing America's GHG emissions but for the US Government to directly and indirectly put a price on carbon; and to directly and indirectly limit the production, supply, and availability of all carbon fuels?

Here's how to get rid of black carbon from electricity generation, cut GHG emissions by 13 Gt CO2 / a by 2050 (same as the Nordhaus «Optimal» carbon price policy) and achieve a lot more benefits as well.

What is the cost to non participants if there is less than full participation in the pricing mechanism (i.e. less than all man - made GHG gasses are included, less than all emissions sources are included, and less than all countries are included) Hint: Nordhaus says that if just 50 % of emissions sources, globally, are included the cost penalty on the participants is 250 %.

Since these conservatives have successfully blocked attempts to implement a cap and trade or other carbon pricing system, we are left with government regulation (via the EPA and its endangerment finding) as the only alternative to reduce GHG emissions from large emitters.

introduced the «Managed Carbon Price Act of 2012» (MCP), a bill imposing a tax on carbon dioxide - equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from producers of coal, oil, and natural gas, refineries, and other covered sources.

Yet it is highly unlikely a global carbon pricing system will be implemented because negotiators recognize the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).

If we implemented policies to meet our goals, a refinery in Canada would face a tradeoff between GHG emissions and a $ 100 / ton carbon price while the climate leaders in the EU would demand a payment of less than $ 40 from the same facility.

Compared to the real world in which unchecked increasing GHG emissions will certainly lead to numerous adverse economic impacts, putting a price on carbon emissions to reduce those impacts will almost certainly prove to be a net economic benefit.

EU prices only 45 % of its human caused GHG emissions.

Yet it is highly unlikely a global carbon pricing system will be implemented because negotiators recognise the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).

The SCE proposal provides continued support for the state's market - based, cap - and - trade program as a critical component of efforts to reduce GHG emissions, while striving to keep electricity affordably priced for utility customers.

To solve this problem, «At a minimum, all countries should agree to penalize carbon and other GHG emissions by the agreed upon minimum price.»

I very much agree with Julian's main points concerning the necessity of China to begin putting a price on its carbon emissions by 2020, especially given how vulnerable China is to increasing concentrations of GHG, etc..

Canada, Germany, and California are each already involved with assigning a price to GHG emissions.

If we do need to reduce GHG emissions we can replace fossil fuels much more cheaply than by further distorting energy markets by introducing carbon pricing mechanisms.

Wider policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions such as carbon pricing mechanisms may also support RE.

Price, L., 2005: Voluntary agreements for energy efficiency or GHG emission reduction in industry: An assessment of programs around the world.

Carbon pricing is the climate economists way to cut global GHG emissions.

All lines except «Copenhagen» and «0.5 Copen Partic» assume the whole world implements a carbon price in unison in 2010, and the pricing scheme covers 100 % of human - caused GHG emissions.

This results in a value or price being attached to GHG emissions.

«The initial challenge is simply to establish a system that will demonstrate the societal decision that GHG emissions shall have a price, and to provide the signal of what constitutes appropriate short - term and long - term measures to limit GHG emissions,» the study concluded.

If we have to price GHG emissions and regulate compliance, the compliance cost will inevitably become a huge cost.

First, it will require focusing on raising the price of CO2 and other GHG emissions in the marketplace.

New York State energy planning based on the Reforming the Energy Vision goal to change the energy system of New York to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80 % from 1990 levels by 2050 is trying to choose between many expensive policy options like pricing carbon in the electric sector while at the same time attempting to understand which one (or what mix) will be the least expensive and have the fewest negative impacts on the existing system.

Moreover, I would suggest that those of us in «the electorate» who are well - informed about this issue are well aware that changes in public policy — including putting a price on carbon pollution, directly regulating GHG emissions, and providing effective support for the development and deployment of efficiency and renewable energy technologies on a scale at least comparable to the subsidies that fossil fuels have received for a century — are far more effective than the options that any individual can currently choose, and are in fact crucial to making more such options available to all of us.

For example, climate scientists are least well - placed to make a judgement on the timing and quantum of CO2 emissions that are exported from, say, Spain, as a result of higher electricity prices there resulting from wind and solar, and certainly very poorly placed to opine on the impact on global GHG emissions of cap - and - trade or any similar EU or even EU / USA - wide policy.

The corn - to - ethanol subsidy in the USA was not aimed at reducing GHG emissions, or even its ostensible purpose of reducing dependence on foreign oil, but at raising the price of corn to put money into farmers» pockets.

This website is the first step towards our goal of bringing together on one site all of the publicly - available data on: CO2 emissions; Other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) and GHG sinks; Energy production and consumption; Energy investment, prices and taxes; Socio - economic benchmarks & drivers.

The only conclusion to draw then is that neither the Price nor Renewable Growth is the silver bullet of hope they are made out to be because they are not in fact being deployed at the much higher rate circumstances demand for ongoing increases of GHG emissions globally to stop then drop.

A recent survey of 144 of the world's top economists with expertise on climate change found that 88 % agreed that the benefits of carbon pricing outweigh the costs, and over 94 % agreed the US should reduce its GHG emissions if other major emitters also commit to reductions (which many already have, particularly in Europe):