If coal usage is never constrained by environmental policy nor limited by emergence of less expensive energy sources, the resulting climate disruption can be expected to reach catastrophic levels.
Not exact matches
It is possible that the creation of cement will not be as bad as the pollution from
coal - mining; however, in regards to «With the elimination of fly - ash alternatives, cement creation will quickly be the leading cause of green house gases» —
If it is a top creator now, and we increase the
usage, would you not expect it to climb the list?
For each sector, they then analyzed the current amount and source of the fuel consumed —
coal, oil, gas, nuclear, renewables — and calculated the fuel demands
if all fuel
usage were replaced with electricity.
He backed the climate change bill aftersecuring amendments to make sure that
coal usage would continue to grow between now and 2020 even
if the bill became law.
your link cites rising pollution from burning
coal, which
if anything bolsters the case for increased solar
usage.
Jim D: I wonder
if they mention that China's life expectancy was reduced by 5 years in some areas due to increased
coal usage.
I wonder
if they mention that China's life expectancy was reduced by 5 years in some areas due to increased
coal usage.
Then
if ensuing events failed to meet our assumptions, we could end up with a large increase in
coal usage and a large net increase in CO2 emissions.
Too bad, as the New York Times point out, that even though natural gas does have a far less impact on global warming than does
coal,
if we're going to reduce carbon emissions by 2050 enough to prevent the worst of climate change, the increase in natural gas
usage won't cut it.