Sentences with phrase «u.s. emissions policy»

* The Situation: Exxon Mobil has stopped funding some groups that challenge global - warming fears and is discussing what a U.S. emissions policy might look like.

Not exact matches

In his year - end interviews, and in the final days of the fall sitting of the House of Commons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said it would be crazy to impose additional costs on Canada's oil and gas sector in a time of low prices if the U.S. was not enacting similar carbon emission policies.

Since taking office last January, the Trump administration has rolled back a number of Obama - era initiatives, including pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Accord and repealing the Clean Power Plan, a policy to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal - fired power plants.

Green groups have lobbied Stefanik to help retain the funding for the program, and have fretted about the Trump administration's rollbacks on environmental policies, including pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Accord and Pruitt's decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan, an Obama - era policy designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal - fired power plants.

And many analysts view gas as a growing piece of a puzzle of policy and economic factors that could keep U.S. carbon emissions in check through 2035.

The policy that could drive it, he said, is U.S. EPA's rule on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, which California agreed to in a deal with the Obama administration.

And U.S. agencies should adopt standards for measuring, monitoring and verifying international forest activities that prevent double - counting and account for the potential for forest emissions to shift to other areas as a result of climate policy.

Under Obama the CEQ is moving forward with plans formulated during his predecessor's tenure for a U.S. policy on oceans — from newly protected areas to reconciling competing authorities and laws — along with continuing the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate as a way to address global greenhouse gas emissions.

«There is the potential for the U.S. and other countries to continue to rely on coal as a source of energy while at the same time protecting the climate from the massive greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal,» says Steve Caldwell, coordinator for regional climate change policy at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an Arlington, Va., think tank.

U.S. state policies aimed at mitigating power plant emissions vary widely in effectiveness, finds a new study by researchers at Emory University.

Our emission standards, our energy rules, drove U.S. policy.

Even if the Trump administration retains all of the U.S.'s current emissions - reducing policies, and carries out all of the proposed ones, there is a good chance the U.S. will still miss its Paris agreement pledge.

The Nature Climate Change study estimates the Clean Power Plan accounts for about half of emissions cuts from the U.S.'s current and proposed policies.

A white paper released by the Brookings Institution last week charts a new policy to cut U.S. greenhouse emissions.

In terms of climate policy, the healthier diets could contribute up to 23 percent of the U.S. Climate Action Plan goal to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, Cleveland said.

Even as policy wonks speculated on where the U.S. emission cuts would come from, Republicans were harmonizing around a dire message — that China is an untrustworthy partner and is outmaneuvering Obama.

«There is the potential for the U.S. and other countries to continue to rely on coal as a source of energy while at the same time protecting the climate from the massive greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal,» says Steve Caldwell, coordinator for regional climate change policy at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

While the new report indicates U.S. emissions have slightly declined this year, Le Quéré suggested these policy shifts may actually be «very damaging» in the long term.

If implemented, the proposed tax would likely reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent by 2025, according to an analysis by two leading scholars on energy - related policy.

As auto makers, federal policy makers and environmentalists get ready to craft the next round of U.S. corporate average fuel economy, Tonkin raps an Environmental Protection Agency proposal to improve fuel - economy and carbon - dioxide - emissions reductions equivalent by as much as 62 mpg (3.9 L / 100 km).

It concludes that «given that household travel and residential energy use account for 42 % of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, these findings highlight the importance of smart growth policies to build more compact and transit friendly cities as a crucial part of any strategic efforts to mitigate GHG emissions and stabilize climate.»

In a forthcoming paper for the Harvard Law and Policy review, «Fast Clean Cheap,» we argue that a regulation - centered approach would only achieve 10 — 30 percent emissions reductions in the U.S. by 2050, whereas we need 80 percent emissions reductions in the U.S. and 50 percent emissions reductions worldwide by then if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming.

A new National Research Council report finds that by the year 2050, the U.S. may be able to reduce petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent for light - duty vehicles — cars and small trucks — via a combination of more efficient vehicles; the use of alternative fuels like biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen; and strong government policies to overcome high costs and influence consumer choices.

But the fact that current U.S. climate policies probably don't yet match with our stated goal of reducing emissions by 26 - 28 percent in the next 10 years is partially offset by Obama's growing climate influence abroad.

Even if CO2 Scorecard is correct that the effect of natural gas on emissions has been less than previously believed, delivering one quarter of U.S. carbon cuts is still «pretty significant,» said Michael Tubman, a senior fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), a nonprofit policy organization.

The Alliance to Save Energy's National Commission on Energy Efficiency Policy last week proposed a set of efficiency steps for buildings, industry, and transportation that it concluded would reduce U.S. carbon - dioxide emissions by one third, while cutting household energy costs, reducing energy imports, and increasing GDP.

It is being pointed out to you that the department's planning and programming policy commits the department to leadership in substantial emissions reductions to «reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives» and «to foster efforts to assess, adapt to, and mitigate the impacts of climate change».

HERE is one Ceres investor statement by 190 real - money investors with more than US$ 13 trillion of assets: «On 14 January 2010 the world's largest investors released a statement calling on the U.S. and other governments to quickly adopt strong national climate policies that will establish a stable investment climate and thus spur low - carbon investments to reduce emissions causing climate change.»

Ultimately, the U.S. needs a long - term clean energy policy that create a long - term market for renewable energy, encourages and supports the integration of renewable energy, puts a price on carbon emissions, and increases funding for research and development.

«Attended course «International Forest Carbon Policy for U.S. Decision - Makers» at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica; the course provided information on the scientific, economic and political concepts of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation policies, and the ramifications of their implementation to the United States and the tropics.»

But significant new policies at the federal and state level are necessary to meet the U.S. commitment under the Paris Agreement to lower its emissions to 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Both voluntary activities and a variety of policies and measures that lower emissions are currently in place at federal, state, and local levels in the U.S., even though there is no comprehensive national climate legislation.

Hansen then lays out the case for why he believes a carbon fee - and - dividend policy is preferable to an emission cap - and - trade approach, both for U.S. domestic policy and for achieving an effective international accord.

U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz emphasized the Obama administration's commitment to curbing CO2 emissions during an appearance at Columbia University Monday, but he also stressed that energy policies must be grounded in reality:

PURPOSE: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen pollution associated with agriculture and biofuels in the U.S. through research, policy advocacy, education, and outreach

; Cap - and - Trade versus the Alternatives for U.S. Climate Policy; Can Countries Cut Carbon Emissions Without Hurting Economic Growth?

Mario has experience in energy and emissions modeling and in climate and energy policy analysis in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and the U.S. Previously, he worked at non-profit organizations and think - tanks on initiatives in biodiversity conservation in LAC, iNDC analysis, energy efficiency in buildings, and post-Maria grid restructuring efforts in Puerto Rico.

NRDC favors more economical and environmentally sustainable approaches to reducing both U.S. and global carbon emissions, focusing on the widest possible implementation of end - use energy - efficiency improvements, and on policies to accelerate the commercialization of clean, flexible, renewable energy technologies — and use them to power our vehicles and homes.

Low - cost gas and wind generation is clobbering coal in the Midwest as elsewhere in the U.S. Regardless of new federal government policy pronouncements aimed at rescuing coal, low - emissions sources are likely to prevail in MISO's view.

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.»

Local and state governments in the Northeast have been leaders and incubators in utilizing legal and regulatory opportunities to foster climate change policies.103 The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was the first market - based regulatory program in the U.S. aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions; it is a cooperative effort among nine northeastern states.104 Massachusetts became the first state to officially incorporate climate change impacts into its environmental review procedures by adopting legislation that directs agencies to «consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts, including additional greenhouse gas emissions, and effects, such as predicted sea level rise.»

Dr. Romm helped lead the administration's climate technology policy formulation, and initiated, supervised, and publicized a comprehensive technical analysis by five national laboratories of how energy technologies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at low - cost: Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions.

In the search for planet levers to address climate change, we should look for ways to significantly cut emissions that don't require grand policy solutions, such as carbon taxes or global cap - and - trade schemes, or the approval of the U.S. Congress or the United Nations.

None of the companies — BP Plc, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Total SA, Statoil ASA, Eni SpA and BG Group — is based in the U.S. Still, their argument should resonate in Washington: «Clear, stable, long - term» policies that make carbon more expensive (the letter never uses the word «tax») are necessary to reduce uncertainty, stimulate investment and encourage the most efficient reductions in emissions.

Synapse modeled two case studies with AVERT, a tool that uses historical generation and emissions data reported to the EPA by U.S. power plants to estimate the hourly emissions and generation benefits of clean energy policies and programs.

IMO their estimate of the taxes needed to accomplish this were very low (and discussant Paul Joskow pointed this out in his included remarks, noting that other people estimated these taxes as being 20 times bigger because they assumed that CO2 emissions would grow a lot faster without the tax), but for what it's worth they found a fairly small equivalent variation (loss) of about $ 250 billion (in 1990 dollars) for the U.S. in carrying out this policy.

The Clean Air Act lacks any other mechanism for economy - wide CO2 regulation, and the Administration will say it is legally and politically justified by both the inability of existing policy to meet either the specific U.S. commitment at Paris, an 80 percent emissions reduction, or the longer - term, 2 - degree goal to which the world is collectively committed.

Projections of U.S. transportation energy use indicate that better vehicle efficiency and low - carbon fuels will not be sufficient to reach sectoral emissions reduction goals if travel demand grows at pre-recession rates, so managing demand will be a key ingredient of climate policy for the sector.

... National policy, supported in part by the scientific analysis of Hewlett Foundation grantees, will eliminate 320 metric tons of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2020.

A grassroots - organizing and corporate campaigning veteran, she oversees work aimed at securing policies that reduce U.S. global warming emissions and speed the country's transition to clean energy.