Sentences with phrase «burning fossil fuels developed»

Not exact matches

On the blackboard, fusing hydrogen atoms produces enormous amounts of heat which can be captured and developed into an energy source, energy that is safe, cheap, does not burn fossil fuels or consume non-renewable resources.

Even though it's considered the dirtiest of fossil fuels and as a result is being burned less in many developed countries, there's no way that it would suddenly stop being used.

The Clean Power Plan was part of an effort that included New York and other states to develop required cuts in emissions from fossil fuel burning power plants in order to combat climate change.

In a major blow to the government's plans to develop «clean» coal technology (where fossil fuels are burnt and the emissions stored underground), the company have postponed the project.

States like New York will have to take the lead in developing new sources of energy that do not rely on the burning of fossil fuels and are safe.

Because oxygen is critical to many forms of life and geochemical processes, numerous models and indirect proxies for the oxygen content in the atmosphere have been developed over the years, but there was no consensus on whether oxygen concentrations were rising, falling or flat during the past million years (and before fossil fuel burning).

This relates to the whole area of development for people talking about biofuels, which is this idea of trying to develop replacements for the conventional sorts of fossil fuels that we have to at least — if we are going to be burning some sort of hydrocarbons of some kind — to try to get them [so] that they are being derived from a different source, and potentially or ideally, ones that would actually burn without delivering as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere too; that's great if you can get that.

Emerging economies such as China and India have not joined the Coalition, arguing that its membership of mostly developed nations including Japan, Canada and Australia should focus more on curbing carbon dioxide, released from burning fossil fuels.

In some ways, energy regulations to curtail fossil fuel burning may be an easier sell in developing countries than in the United States, said Rachel Cleetus, senior economist with the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

But fossil fuel advocates note that DOE support has been critical to industry advances, including developing the technology behind fracking, offshore drilling, and cleaner - burning coal and natural gas power plants.

Scientists employed methods developed in this study to tag each source of aerosol, such as fossil - fuel burning from vehicles and power plants, or biomass burning, and follow its path in the model.

published report, Hayward stated that holding the US back from fulfilling it's petroleum - based product requirements is «a reluctance to develop the nation's massive natural resources under the mistaken belief in the unproven science that claims carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from burning of fossil fuels is the major cause of recent and future warming of the Earth.

Carbon taxes have been proposed in developed countries as a mechanism to internalize the environmental and public health costs of burning fossil fuels, which are currently externalized and foisted off on the public.

Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.

In regards to: «Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.»

Brian Dodge (359) Says: -LCB- Regarding the issue of liability for the effects of global warming, I would like to point out that we're (USA & developed nations population mostly) the ones who burned the fossil fuels to CO2, not Peabody Coal or Exxon / Mobil.

China, for example, will be a developing nation burning fossil fuels for a long time to come.

Now what we can do is 1) develop a sustainable energy economy 2) a) burn all the coal and other fossil fuels, buying us, if we make optimistic assumptions, perhaps a century of ever more elaborate schemes to meet energy needs with less and less suitable sources b) THEN in a severely degraded environment

Significant effort is going into researching and developing ways of capturing and storing CO2 emitted from fossil fuels when they are burned.

But as the world develops, I think there's still going to be an awful lot of fossil fuels burned.

Researchers are trying to develop ways to burn more biomass and less fossil fuels.

What is most important is to constantly point out that the improvement of understanding that develops confirms (does not contradict) the unacceptability of massive burning of fossil fuels, regardless of the popularity of that activity among those who want to benefit from it.

«Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed.»

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

Figure 1 helps make clear why the tar sands and other unconventional fossil fuels ought not to be developed and burned.

I see the burning of fossil fuels as the handmaiden of human betterment down the ages, and before I see it denied to today's developing populations and to future generations, I want to see proper scientific evidence.

The «social cost of carbon» was developed in large part to compare long - term costs from coastal flooding and other impacts of emissions of climate - warming carbon dioxide with upfront costs to the economy from curbing the burning of fossil fuels, the main source of such emissions.

Instruments such as carbon taxes that are designed to increase the cost of burning fossil fuels rely on decision makers to develop expectations about future trajectories of fuel prices and other economic conditions.

The text also calls for climate «neutrality», which shifts the burden away from developed countries and allows countries to continue to extract and burn fossil fuels.

A second horrific error has been made by environmental organizations, many developed country governments, and the United Nations by promoting reductions in the emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels to obtain energy that has made possible the high standard of living now found in developed countries.

It is difficult to see how developing, transporting, and refining the tar sands would be anywhere near the most economical (let alone environmentally acceptable) option for burning a strictly limited quantity of fossil fuel while expediting a phase - out.

Partly because of the dominance of the oil, gas, and coal industries, which have been providing cheap fuel by omitting the indirect costs of fossil fuel burning, relatively little has been invested in developing the earth's geothermal heat resources.

Methane emissions derive mostly from landfills, agriculture (particularly rice farming), livestock, and natural gas and coal extraction, while soot, otherwise called «black carbon», results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and derives primarily from primitive cook stoves used throughout much of the developing world, as well as diesel engines and coal - burning power plants.

short answer A bad idea, since (i) they produce CO2 (partly responsible for the rise in global warming), (ii) there is a limited amount of fossil fuel from which we make valuable materials such as lubricants and plastics, (iii) fossil fuel resources are finite, so burning them means we are consuming a resource we can never replace, and (iv) we can actually build new industries and create many new jobs developing renewable sources of energy instead of burning fossil fuels.

As the world has developed and demand for energy has grown, we've burned more fossil fuels, causing more greenhouse gases to be trapped in the atmosphere and air temperatures to rise.

Meanwhile, in the prior administration, money was actually cut off to efforts to develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels, and it was a major setback, while we in fact subsidized efforts TO rely on burning fossil fuels.

Problem is, in characterizing everything as «poppycock» that completely undermines any effort to develop clean, efficient technology that gets its energy elsewhere than burning fossil fuels.

According to the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, a team led by G.K. Surya Prakash and George Olah has developed a method to turn carbon dioxide (CO2)- the primary gas humans create - into methanol, a fuel which is cleaner - burning and safer than fossil fuels.

This was a political protocol based on the claim that wealthy industrialized (developed) nations, led by the US, did so by burning fossil fuels.

We're not going to convince China and India and other developing countries not to burn fossil fuels.»

The World Bank is spending billions of pounds subsidising new coal - fired power stations in developing countries while acknowledging that burning fossil fuels exposes the poor to catastrophic climate change.

Wealthy nations with a perception of wealth due to their history of benefiting from fossil fuel burning owe compensation to other nations for CO2 impacts and assistance to developing nations so they can bypass the damaging step of fossil fuel burning as they advance (and the wealthy nations that should be financially compensating and assisting other nations includes nations like Saudi Arabia who continue to try to maintain a perception that they are a developing nation needing CO2 impact compensation and assistance).

I've been following this topic since the mid-90's and from what I've read, I think they want to stop the burning of fossil fuels mainly in developed countries as well as put the clamps on democracy, and redistribute our wealth to developing countries for two reasons: 1) to bring down their fertility rates by development and 2) to provide reliable electric power to areas of the world without it so that the NSA can easily keep track of the rest of the world's population.

They are non-value added endeavors, while burning fossil fuels provides the energy needed to maintain and grow the world economy in order to ensure humans the high quality of life and long life expectancy we (in the developed world) now enjoy.

In doing so we'll also prevent some 1.5 million premature deaths annually due to improved air quality.Soot Comes Out of the Atmosphere in Weeks, Not Decades Since soot — which in this context comes from older diesel engines and burning other fossil fuels, industrial sources, inefficient biomass cookstoves used in many developing nations — comes out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks, not decades or centuries like carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, removing the source of pollution is highly effective in both stopping the warming effects as well as improving air quality.

In his book The Conundrum, David Owen, a staff writer at the New Yorker, contends that as long as the West places high and unquestioning value on economic growth and consumer gratification — with China and the rest of the developing world right behind — we will continue to burn the fossil fuels whose emissions trap heat in the atmosphere.

The email begins: «HydroInfra Technologies (HIT) is a Stockholm based clean tech company that has developed an innovative approach to neutralizing carbon fuel emissions from power plants and other polluting industries that burn fossil fuels.»

Ironically, these aerosols are also the product of fossil fuel burning and strict regulations were imposed in the developed world on their emissions in the 1960s and 1970s which allowed the warming from carbon dioxide to emerge again.

I concluded that the world would recognize that it had to phase out coal without burning it all, and not develop unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands.

It is solved easily if one accepts that any evolving civilisation which develops will inevitably burn up its fossil fuels before it has time to realise that they are the only means of escape from their planet.