Sentences with phrase «u.s. emissions mitigation»

Not exact matches

The largest blow to U.S. mitigation efforts will be if Trump rescinds or weakens the Clean Power Plan — a rule that requires power plants to reduce their carbon emissions, which was finalized in 2015 but is currently tied up in court.

The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the president is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation.

While the greenhouse gas footprint of the production of other foods, compared to sources such as livestock, is highly dependent on a number of factors, production of livestock currently accounts for about 30 % of the U.S. total emissions of methane.316, 320,325,326 This amount of methane can be reduced somewhat by recovery methods such as the use of biogas digesters, but future changes in dietary practices, including those motivated by considerations other than climate change mitigation, could also have an effect on the amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere.327

Included in this set of studies are the following: Carolyn Fischer (Resources for the Future) and Richard Newell (U.S. Energy Information Administration, on leave from Duke University), «Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation»; Stephen Schneider (late of Stanford University) and Lawrence Goulder (Stanford University), «Achieving Low - Cost Emissions Targets»; and Daren Acemoglu (MIT), Philippe Aghion, Leonardo Bursztyn, and David Hemous (Harvard University), «The Environment and Directed Technical Change.»

The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17 % below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation.

You may wonder why the government finds the need to pursue such action since 1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have already topped out and have generally been on the decline for the past 7 - 8 years or so (from technological advances in natural gas extraction and a slow economy more so than from already - enacted government regulations and subsidies); 2) greenhouse gases from the rest of the world (primarily driven by China) have been sky - rocketing over the same period, which lessens any impacts that our emissions reduction have); and 3) even in their totality, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have a negligible influence on local / regional / global climate change (even a immediate and permanent cessation of all our carbon dioxide emissions would likely result in a mitigation of global temperature rise of less than one - quarter of a degree C by the end of the century).

This methane mitigation success is reflected not only in EDF's studies, but also EPA and the Global Carbon Project data (which was referenced in the aforementioned highly regarded NAS study), which show U.S. oil and natural gas methane emissions account for only 1.4 percent of all methane emissions worldwide.

But when it came to saying anything that might be taken as endorsing the need for a stronger U.S. emissions reduction policy, Marburger ducked coming to grips with the IPCC assessment reports on climate change Impacts and Mitigation.