Sentences with phrase «burning less fossil fuels»

And it dries much faster, which means you'll be burning less fossil fuels on laundry day.

The most straightforward way would be for people to burn less fossil fuel.

I do think the solutions to this problem is easy enough: just burn less fossil fuel.

In the end, the result is the same - we burn less fossil fuel, increase our resilience and independence, harness renewable resources of sun, wind and biofuels, minus all the politics.

Cut our «nasty» emissions by burning less fossil fuel.

Double - paned windows are a boon to the environment as well, because when you burn less fossil fuel, you create fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Not exact matches

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 current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years — and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.

Increases in the price of fossil fuels since 1979 have meant that less has been burned and less carbon dioxide has been added to the atmosphere.

Industrialized countries with less than a quarter of the world's population are responsible for about three - quarters of the carbon dioxide released by burning fossil fuels.

Many of the same warnings Mario Cuomo heard in the 1980s about Shoreham are the same ones his son hears today from supporters of Indian Point: Closing a nuclear plant will result in blackouts, a less reliable electric grid and increased air pollution as fossil fuels are burned to replace the lost emissions - free nuclear power; customers could face higher bills; more than 1,000 jobs will be lost, and tax revenue for schools and towns will dissipate.

By adopting lighting technologies that use less energy the nations of the world will cut down on the fossil fuels, often coal, burned to produce that light.

Burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning other fossilBurning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning other fossilburning other fossil fuels.

Realistic large - scale solar panel coverage could cause less than half a degree of local warming, far less than the several degrees in global temperature rise predicted over the next century if we keep burning fossil fuels.

And the less common and more extreme the hot extreme or heavy rainfall event, the more this can be blamed on human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.

The transition from deeply rooted energy systems based on burning fossil fuels to new norms emitting ever less of this gas — here and in China — is seen by many as requiring a sustained energy quest including much greater direct government investment on the frontiers of relevant technologies (batteries, photovoltaics, superconductivity, photosynthesis).]

Now once this ratio (whatever it might be) has been established, I see no reason why more or less the same ratio can not be applied to all cases of fossil fuel burning prior to that period, especially since there were no controls over the emission of such aerosols during either period.

One article I was recently reading stated that hemp seed oil produces a cleaner buring fuel (nearly 90 % burn, with considerably less ash and CO2 production) than any fossil fuel (33 % burn at the most efficient)

One article I was recently reading stated that hemp seed oil produces a cleaner buring fuel (nearly 90 % burn, with considerably less ash and CO2 production) than any fossil fuel (33 % burn at the most efficient) and was actually banned because the oil industry (and the rope industry, as hemp weave made a stronger and less expensive rope than current materials) decided to push their congresscritters to close it down because hemp could make Marijuana.

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

And if the climate movement can keep pressuring the the government, banks and universities to invest in the future and divest from fossil fuels, it seems inevitable that we'll be burning less coal in the coming years, whether President Obama has officially waged a War on Coal or not.

In addition, the popularity of natural gas relies, in part, on its reputation as a «bridge fuel» — the fossil fuel that will lead to a renewable energy future because it's cleaner burning, emits less greenhouse gas and uses water less intensively in certain steps of the process.

Less well known is the immense potential of soils to act as vast carbon sinks, with the ability to «naturally turn over about 10 times more greenhouse gas on a global scale than the burning of fossil fuels.»

The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years — and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.»

Inglis touts a carbon tax as a classic win - win - win because it makes the nation less reliant on oil imports from enemies, creates homegrown clean technology jobs and cleans up air sullied with pollutants from burning fossil fuels.

Oil is especially useful due to its portability (I don't expect coal - burning cars to come on the market any time soon), so I wouldn't expect the drop in oil consumption to be made up for with other lesser fossil fuels.

Burning these pellets produces less than half the emissions of fossil fuel, not counting the energy needed to ship them across the Atlantic.

The 2009 State of the Climate report gives these top indicators: humans emitted 30 billion tons of of CO2 into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas), less oxygen in the air from the burning of fossil fuels, rising fossil fuel carbon in corals, nights warming faster than days, satellites show less of the earth's heat escaping into space, cooling of the stratosphere or upper atmosphere, warming of the troposphere or lower atmosphere, etc..

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

If we keep burning fossil fuels at our current rates, food may become harder and harder to grow in many places — as even slight changes in long - established precipitation and temperature patterns can wreak havoc on certain fruits and vegetables — and what does grow could be less and less nutritious.

Scientists complained that the programme makers distorted evidence, and made elementary mistakes such as claiming that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human activities, when in fact they produce less than 2 % of that caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Even though global energy demand is the same in either case, effectively we will need to produce less energy because less is wasted through inefficient fossil fuel burning.

- any increase of the decay rate from the biosphere over the uptake would lead to increased oxygen use, but we see the opposite: oxygen use is less than expected from fossil fuel burning, thus the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2.

If large CO2 - based global warming is a reality, we might actually want to burn more fossil fuels, not less.

Data correlating «ordinary science intelligence» (as measured by a standard nine - question test), political ideology, and tendency to agree with the statement «there is «solid evidence» of recent global warming due «mostly» to «human activity such as burning fossil fuels»» suggests that conservative Republicans become less likely to agree with the scientific consensus on climate change the more educated they are.

Favorable energy economics are just one of solar's many benefits — including less water use, lack of requirement for a centralized grid in undeveloped regions, low cost, zero air pollution, and in providing a mitigation for the rising problem of global climate change (which is primarily driven by human fossil fuel burning).

Less happily, the electricity for running all these air conditioners is generated by burning fossil fuels.

Climate change caused by fossil fuel burning is the cause of the large - scale deoxygenation, as warmer waters hold less oxygen.

Almost any biomass material can be converted to create methanol or ethanol, and these fuels burn cleanly with less carbon monoxide and higher octane than fossil fuels.

Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One advantage to the environment − according to a discussion paper from the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis − is that ships will burn far less fossil fuel to reach their destination.

While nuclear energy is regarded as the lesser of the two evils when compared at an emission level to the burning of fossil - fuels, it may trump on the containment of the heat process, which burns in a contained nuclear reactor through an in - ward heat - chemical reaction called fission, but nuclear energy production is a chain from uranium mining to the toxic waste disposal and therefore as an entire process is an equally high risk environmental option.

8 GHG Sources Combustion of fossil fuels Deforestation (loss of sink)-- Slash and burn techniques release CO 2 — Fewer trees, less photosynthesis Fertilizers CFCs Methane

Oxygen use from fossil fuel burning is more or less known from sales and burning efficiency of each type of fuel.

Burning methane and other NATURAL gasses produces far less CO2 / kilocalorie / mole than traditional fossil fuels.

The amount of electricity generated in a power grid must always equal the amount being consumed, so when wind turbines put power into a grid other generators, often fossil - fuelled, generate less; so less fossil fuels are burned.

If the Earth's climate is relatively insensitive to rising carbon levels, then it's somewhat less urgent that we stop burning massive quantities of fossil fuels.

Before the Fossil Fuel Age (it started with coal burning around 1700), humans numbered less than one billion for their entire evolutionary existence on this planet.

We do not know how to answer the most important question: do our human activities in general, and our burning of fossil fuels in particular, make the onset of the next ice - age more likely or less likely?

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?