Sentences with phrase «as a waste dump»

The only ethical path is to stop using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gas pollution.

He needs to articulate a vision of a 21st century energy system that does not use the atmosphere as a waste dump for our CO2 pollution.

And, of course, we need to stop using the sea and sky as waste dumps for our carbon dioxide pollution.»

«To save coral reefs, we need to transform our energy system into one that does not use the atmosphere and oceans as waste dumps for carbon dioxide pollution.

But two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact is that the capacity of the atmosphere to act as a waste dump for carbon has already been overshot — if we want to limit temperature increases to levels that would allow nations such as the Maldives to survive.

From the grayed - out countrysides over which the sky has closed like a lid; to the drizzly neon decadence of Los Angeles; to a San Diego refashioned as a waste dump worthy of Wall - E; to the Ozymandian wreckage of Las Vegas — the film is a splendor of the first order.

In other words, it is one thing to say (as a human being who happens to be a scientist) that we need to stop using the sky as a waste dump for our greenhouse gas pollution.

Would we like it today if the Romans had developed a modern technological society like ours, and their scientists told them that using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gases would melt the ice caps, acidity the oceans, overheat the tropics, cause species extinctions, etc, and then they decided to go ahead and do it anyway, just because they were selfish and didn't care about other people?

«We know what we need to do to protect our oceans, and that is: stop using the atmosphere and oceans as a waste dump.

Although Chinese cumulative emissions will dominate U.S. and EU emissions going forward, this is not because China has used an unfair share of the Earth's ability to act as a waste dump for CO2.

Would we like it today if the Romans had developed a modern technological society like ours, and their scientists told them that using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gases would melt the ice caps, acidify the oceans, overheat the tropics, cause species extinctions, etc, and then they decided to go ahead and do it anyway, just because they were selfish and didn't care about other people?

Rather than articulating the need to phase out technologies that use that atmosphere as a waste dump, the PCAST report recommends the expansion of a natural gas industry whose existence depends on us allowing them to pollute our skies.

«Substantial reductions in emissions are possible for both the U.S. and the rest of the world, but it will take herculean efforts and transforming the global energy system into one that does not use the sky as a waste dump,» Caldeira said.

«If we want to avoid dangerous climate change, we need to be transitioning to an energy system that does not rely on the atmosphere as a waste dump for our CO2 pollution,» Caldeira said.

So I think the solutions really are in finding cheap or affordable alternative energy systems that don't rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Economists estimate it will only take a few per cent of GDP to transform our energy system into one that does not use the sky as a waste dump.

While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

As a political strategy, are we supposed to believe that somehow atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be lower in the future if today we expand fossil fuel industries that rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump?

To a first approximation, if we emit greenhouse gases half as rapidly as we do today, we will wind up in the same place but it will take us twice as long to get there.Economists estimate that it might cost something like 2 % of our GDP to convert our energy system into one that does not use the atmosphere as a waste dump.

If we want to prevent bad climate outcomes, we should stop using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Economists estimate that it might cost something like 2 % of our GDP to convert our energy system into one that does not use the atmosphere as a waste dump.

«We are going to solve the carbon - climate problem when we create an understanding that it is no longer acceptable to use the atmosphere as a waste dump... This should not be a discussion about targets, it should be a discussion about which kinds of objects people should be allowed to build.»