Sentences with phrase «avoid catastrophic warming of»

But some environmentalists remain skeptical that offsets can reduce greenhouse gases to avoid catastrophic warming of the atmosphere.

Not exact matches

The latest research shows that climate talks must lead to more aggressive action to avoid the catastrophic effects of global warming

Beyond preparing for the inevitable, the report also calls for climate mitigation, including implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement in order to have «any hope of avoiding catastrophic effects from sea - level rise and other outcomes of global warming.»

Over what time period might this savannization process release carbon «equivalent to several years of worldwide carbon emissions», and how does that affect the assessment offered by Gore, Hansen and others that we have perhaps ten years in which to substantially reduce CO2 emissions to avoid irreversible catastrophic warming?

We need to average 5 billion tons of carbon this century to avoid catastrophic warming.

Because that's about how much time we have to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and begin steep reductions that will bring emissions to near zero within another ten years at most, if we are to have any hope of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of global warming.

In addition, according to the recent PNAS paper by Yangyang Xua and Veerabhadran Ramanathan, «Well below 2 °C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes» (http://www.pnas.org/content/114/39/10315.full), manmade aerosols are currently «hiding» 0.9 C of warming.

It's that choice of direction that really means «game over» for any hope of avoiding globally catastrophic warming.

If they agree to limit CO2 emissions to avoid catastrophic warming, should they not expect some assistance in development of a replacement energy infrastructure at the very least?

It might be that serious authorities such as Hansen and the head of the UNFCCC secretariat are wrong to declare that goal of a 2.0 C ceiling of warming poses unacceptably dangerous climate destabilization, but it seems widely accepted that a peak of 450ppmv CO2 would allow a near - even chance of staying below 2.0 C and thereby avoiding the feedbacks taking off with catastrophic effects.

No matter how great natural gas's role in reducing America's carbon emissions today, many environmental and climate groups agree the fossil fuel will eventually need to take a back seat to renewables to avoid catastrophic levels of global warming.

As part of a concerted effort to avoid catastrophic climate change, the world unanimously committed to an ongoing effort of increasingly deeper emissions reductions aimed at keeping total warming «to well below 2 °C [3.6 °F] above preindustrial levels.»

Because of those decades of hardcore emitting exactly when we were supposed to be cutting back, the things we must do to avoid catastrophic warming are no longer just in conflict with the particular strain of deregulated capitalism that triumphed in the 1980s.

Now that the US has greatly increased sources of oil and natural gas thanks to drilling using new technology (thus obviating the need for depending on the Middle East), renewable energy advocates have fallen back on their claims that fossil fuel use must be reduced to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

The two - and - half - page text «recognised the scientific view» that warming must be limited to a global average of 2C above preindustrial levels in order for there to be a reasonable chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

The climate alarmists have exploited the public's understandable lack of knowledge concerning climate science to argue that the developed countries (but usually not less developed countries) should give up some or preferably all fossil fuel use in order to avoid alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

The INDCs will largely determine whether the world is on a path to avoid catastrophic climate change by avoiding additional warming of no more than 2 °C.

Although considered critical to avoiding catastrophic global warming, scientists have questioned the feasibility of carbon capture — removing carbon dioxide...

Humans have the means to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences of global warming, a major climate report released today concludes.

Emissions of greenhouse gases will need to fall severely if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of warming.

This report also highlights that current emission reduction actions are insufficient to limit global warming to the 1.5 degrees needed to avoid the most catastrophic of predicted impacts.

It's not going to be easy: The 1,250 experts who wrote the report concluded that in order to avoid what's generally agreed to be catastrophic warming, by 2050 global greenhouse gas emissions are going to have to drop to about 40 to 70 percent of what they were in 2010.

Now a question: which amount of fossil are we allowed to burn to avoid a catastrophic warming, following you?

But I don't see how it will produce steep reductions in GHG emissions within 5 - 10 years, and a nearly complete phase - out of fossil fuel use within 10 - 20 years at most, which is what is needed to avoid catastrophic warming, if indeed it is not already too late to do so.

«Speaking candidly about the prospects of the industrialized world being able to reduce its GHG emissions and avoid catastrophic warming, the only three living diplomats responsible for leading past and present UN global warming talks had this to say:

Leading scientists have issued urgent warnings that future warming must be limited to no more than 1 ° C (1.8 ° F) above year 2000 levels, in order to avoid triggering climate feedbacks leading to even greater warming, and therefore catastrophic impacts such as 20 feet of sea level rise and extinction of a third of the world's species.