Sentences with phrase «about its carbon emissions when»

We even turn a blind eye to the fact that China lied about its carbon emissions when it first came to the table with its pledge last year.

Not exact matches

It also makes logical sense, when you think about the money and the carbon emissions you can save by telecommuting or having accurate weather and soil information available on a farmer's smartphone.

«And communities asked to accept intrusive new renewable energy infrastructure such as wind farms will ask how serious the government is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions when it is still prepared to allow carbon intensive opencast mining.»

It also stirred confusion about the governor's legal authority and what will happen to the carbon trading program, which caps utility carbon dioxide emissions in 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, at a time when national climate legislation appears dead on Capitol Hill.

When burned, gas produces about half of the carbon emissions of coal.

«The consequences of not [acting] are even higher with these results than they were before, when we could think about 1.5 degrees as being in the realm of possibility — which I think, realistically, it's not,» he said, urging more investments in research, a tax on carbon and other established paths to emissions reductions.

When speaking about the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases in the Earth's atmosphere, Goreham correctly told NEPPA members that greenhouse emissions only make up a small fraction of the atmosphere, but wrongfully deduced that this means they could not have any significant impact on the planet.

In particular, when we speak about targets of 2 degrees, or even 1.5 degrees, we should remember that climate science has yet to uncover a simple deterministic relationship between carbon emissions and the level of future global warming.

Anti-regulatory blogs and commentators and the McCain - Palin campaign made a push to publicize a 10 - month - old comment by Senator Barack Obama about the high cost of coal burning if and when a hard cap is set for carbon dioxide emissions.

This says when we get to emissions of a trillion tonnes of carbon since 1750 and we will get a 2 deg C rise in temperature and that is just about bearable.

Regarding your question about who is responsible for the GHG emissions when coal is traded internationally, I'll share what I tell my students during our carbon trading simulation: «The carbon follows the money.»

I'd like to ask a general question: since the oceans are taking up about 1/3 of the anthropogenic carbon emissions, what is the opinion now of the scientific community about when the ocean surface layers will get saturated and this carbon sink (on relatively short timescales) will start to diminish?

But Pearce argues that companies are often a little judicious with the facts behind these claims — Eurostar, for example, is fairly quiet when talking to the green market about the fact its low emissions are due to French nuclear power, and while Virgin's pendolino trains claim a pretty low carbon output, many of their other trains are still powered by dirty diesel (the UK is way behind Europe on electrification, which would cut emissions greatly).

This is because, when we talk about carbon emission scenarios and climate sensitivity, we are ultimately talking about future risk management.

When asked about climate change impacts, Americans do not mention health impacts, 290 and when asked about health impacts specifically, most believe it will affect people in a different time or place.291 But diverse groups of Americans find information on health impacts to be helpful once received, particularly information about the health benefits of mitigation (reducing carbon emissions) and adaptationWhen asked about climate change impacts, Americans do not mention health impacts, 290 and when asked about health impacts specifically, most believe it will affect people in a different time or place.291 But diverse groups of Americans find information on health impacts to be helpful once received, particularly information about the health benefits of mitigation (reducing carbon emissions) and adaptationwhen asked about health impacts specifically, most believe it will affect people in a different time or place.291 But diverse groups of Americans find information on health impacts to be helpful once received, particularly information about the health benefits of mitigation (reducing carbon emissions) and adaptation.292

When asked about specific proposals to reduce climate change, most Democrats (90 %) and smaller majorities of Republicans (65 %) say that restrictions on power plant emissions would make a difference in reducing climate change, as would tax incentives encouraging businesses to reduce their carbon emissions (85 % and 65 %, respectively).

When we think about climate change, the main sources of carbon emissions that come to mind for most of us are heavy industries like petroleum, mining and transportation.

A question was asked about if and when China would consider peaking its carbon emissions (see previou spost «Peaking Duck: Beijing's growing appetite for climate action «-RRB- Mr. Su basically reiterated how unfair he felt it was to talk about developing country peak emissions at this point and that developed countries should shoot for achieving their pick as soon as possible.

The belief that the world can drastically cut global carbon - dioxide emissions at a time when about half of the people on the planet are still living in relative energy poverty borders on fantasy.

Rud, when I talk to those of the Progressive Left who are most concerned about climate change, and who want the United States to become the leader in finding ways to reduce carbon emissions, they pretty much go silent when I inform them that the EPA has legal authority under the Clean Air Act and the 2009 Endangerment Finding to do much more in placing limits on carbon emissions than the agency is actually doing.

There is no mention in the China Daily article about when CCICED thinks these reductions should commence, what the assumptions to GDP growth are till 2050, nor what levels of carbon emissions will result by 2050 if such measures were taken.

Here I am trying to spoon feed to you the FACT that when scientists talk about «human carbon emissions» that it is NOT just CO2.

Also, Virginia should have received more credit for lowering its carbon emissions by building nuclear plants back in the 1970s when no one was thinking about carbon emissions.

When scientists talk about «human carbon emissions» this is not just CO2.

When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.As study authors Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay wrote in the introduction to their paper about this study, this shows «not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem.&raWhen the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.As study authors Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay wrote in the introduction to their paper about this study, this shows «not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem.&rawhen the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement.For Democrats, the same experiment recorded no difference in their belief, regardless of the proposed solution to climate change.As study authors Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay wrote in the introduction to their paper about this study, this shows «not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem.»

The trend in anthropogenic CO2 emissions was essentially flat and very low (averaging just 1 gigaton of carbon [GtC] per year) from about 1900 to 1945, when a significant portion of the modern glacier recession occurred.

Like any attempt to determine what a ghg national target should be, the above chart makes a few assumptions, including but not limited to, about what equity requires not only of the United States but of individual states, when global emissions will peak, and what the carbon emissions budget should be to avoid dangerous climate change.

The following is one depiction of a carbon budget prepared by the Global Commons Institute with three different reductions pathways that make different assumptions about when global ghg emissions peak.

The weather model showed that extreme summertime surface temperatures developed when carbon dioxide emissions were assumed to continue to increase about two percent a year, the «business as usual» scenario.

Lucy Siegle offers 36 positive suggestions on how we can reduce carbon emissions When I became the Observer Magazine's ethical living columnist two years ago I was inundated with questions from readers about recycling.

That's what two men named David thought, too, when they first met in 2008 to talk about a climate policy with very little support: a national tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

But we need a global de facto cap on carbon emissions and as long as we stick to a nation - state system, a global agreement about which countries can emit what when.

Natural gas produces about half the carbon emissions of coal power, so you can imagine how excited clean energy supporters were when it took the top spot.

Indonesia, whose rapid clearing of rainforests accounts for about one - quarter of all carbon emissions from deforestation globally, has said that it will pledge to cut its emissions by 40 % from 2005 levels by 2030, if it receives international support: Currently deforestation is the source of 80 % of Indonesia's carbon emissions, and when these emissions are included in the nation's total (they aren't always, on some charts of highest emitting nations) it is in the top ten emitters — right up there with the US, China, and other industrial nations.

But when we think about how much good produced in China is actually consumed by Chinese themselves, you can estimate how much carbon emission has been transferred to China's own fair share, but for others consumption and welfare.

the moeny denialists make will not matter if we keep going at the rate we are going; then when they concede they want to do dangerous things; carbon capture in the ground... forget about reducing actual emissions and alternative energy sources, let us just bury everything... sickening really.

By now I'm sure you know that deforestation is a major source of carbon emissions — in fact more than all the fuel burned for transportation — which would be enough to worry about, except that when it comes to emissions

SGER was designed around the concept of carbon intensity, which, when talking about the oil sands, equates to the amount of emissions that result from the production of a barrel of oil.

According to Toensmeier, silvopasture has the highest carbon sequestration potential of any temperate climate food production system — about 250 tons per hectare, on par with most naturally - occurring forests in the U.S., even when factoring in the emissions from methane burps.

«When you have Japan, [South] Korea and China having discussions around a north Asian carbon club; when you've got China and Korea having discussions around how do we treat emissions across borders and what's the lowest cost to our economies to meet our emissions targets; when you have China and New Zealand having those conversations about establishing direct engagement because they both have a functioning carbon market with a price; those conversations and those emerging what's being called «carbon clubs» is something that Australia should be participating in,» he sWhen you have Japan, [South] Korea and China having discussions around a north Asian carbon club; when you've got China and Korea having discussions around how do we treat emissions across borders and what's the lowest cost to our economies to meet our emissions targets; when you have China and New Zealand having those conversations about establishing direct engagement because they both have a functioning carbon market with a price; those conversations and those emerging what's being called «carbon clubs» is something that Australia should be participating in,» he swhen you've got China and Korea having discussions around how do we treat emissions across borders and what's the lowest cost to our economies to meet our emissions targets; when you have China and New Zealand having those conversations about establishing direct engagement because they both have a functioning carbon market with a price; those conversations and those emerging what's being called «carbon clubs» is something that Australia should be participating in,» he swhen you have China and New Zealand having those conversations about establishing direct engagement because they both have a functioning carbon market with a price; those conversations and those emerging what's being called «carbon clubs» is something that Australia should be participating in,» he says.