Sentences with phrase «by pollution regulation»

Less cooling from aerosols means there is less masked warming waiting in the wings for when the skies are eventually cleaned by pollution regulation.

Not exact matches

The impetus for the study comes from a headline - making set of recent policy shifts announced by China, including its toughest - ever set of regulations on local environmental pollution.

Air pollution regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are estimated to save thousands of lives annually.

As the nation's aging power grid is upgraded with cleaner energy sources — spurred by federal and state - level regulations on air pollution, renewable portfolio standards and tax credits — the emissions profiles of EVs across the country are expected to improve.

The science - related cuts proposed by the Trump administration come in programs that deal with issues it opposes ideologically, such as climate change and the use of regulation to reduce pollution.

Without global regulations, acoustic pollution will grow because shipping is growing (by 2 to 6 percent annually).

, a leading climate skeptic who opposes restrictions on carbon pollution, argued that the administration could harm the U.S. economy by enacting new regulations particularly given the skyrocketing emissions of China and India, Kerry was quick with a challenge.

The U.S. government should tweak its approach for estimating the financial impacts of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution, which it uses in drafting new regulations, according to a report released today by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS).

-- After reviewing the report required by subsection (a), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in concurrence with the Secretary of Agriculture, may, by regulation and after public notice and comment, modify the non-Federal lands portion of the definition of «renewable biomass» in section 610 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 in order to advance the goals of increasing America's energy independence, protecting the environment, and reducing global warming pollution.

-LSB-...] The CAA as amended in 1990 does mention «carbon dioxide» and» global warming potential,» but only once, in the context of non-regulatory provisions, and each time followed by a caveat admonishing EPA not to infer authority for «pollution control requirements» or «additional regulation.»

International and federal regulations have attempted to reduce the amount of air pollution generated by cruise ships, but there's still work to be done.

Because of these nuisance characteristics it is not surprising that poop did get all the attention when sewage treatment was introduced a century ago, even tough the pollution caused by human's real waste (urine) is still ignored by many country's water pollution regulations.

But Obama faces a reality that many of these groups seem slow to recognize: While the 20th - century toolkit preferred by traditional environmentalists — litigation, regulation and legislation — remains vital to limiting domestic pollution risks such as the oil gusher, it is a bad fit for addressing the building human influence on the climate system, which is driven now mainly by a surge in emissions mostly outside United States borders in countries aiming to propel their climb out of poverty on the same fossil fuels that generated much of our affluence.

Developed countries have made this step with air and water pollution by enacting outright regulations and installing a cap and trade system.

As the New Jersey legislature votes to ban fracking, some word on what the EPA is doing to minimize the environmental damage which could be caused with unregulated hydraulic fracturing: Natural Gas Watch reports that EPA head Lisa Jackson has said that there may soon be Federal regulations dealing with air pollution caused by the natural gas extraction process.On the air quality issues, Jackson said:

4:25 p.m. Addendum on methane leaks added Given that government resources for environmental regulation (and just about everything else) will be constrained for a long time to come, I've been enthusiastic about efforts by the public to take a D.I.Y. (do it yourself) role in tracking pollution or resource issues, whether on the ground or online.

And if you are right and all that extra CO2 has no negative effects, and life in the future is wonderful, and life on earth becomes even more diverse and many species are added rather than become extinct, and the the fiat economy is booming based on the Keyensian model, and the long purported idea of a free market as promulgated on MSNBC by Larry Kudlow makes the economy safer and more productive than ever (and we get rid of all those silly regulations regarding safety and pollution that limit the profit potential of corporations), you can eat me (though in the world you imagine, you probably would prefer a nice ribeye).

And in the 1970s we saw even more significant activity by Brown's closest allies including: changing pollution regulations to benefit his family's Indonesian oil monopoly; killing Sundesert; and lobbying Mexico's President to approve a natural gas project.

According to EPA, carbon pollution from electricity generation decreased by 16 percent from 2005 to 2012, a reduction that registers as roughly half of the 30 percent target mandated by the regulation.

It's the vast majority of climate scientists vs (in this particular case) a front group for activities by PR disinformation specialists, financed indirectly by fossil fuel companies and others opposed to regulation of GHG emission pollution.]

First is regulation that could strand assets in several ways: direct regulation on carbon led by authorities at the local, national, regional, or global level; indirect regulation through increased pollution controls, constraints on water usage, or policies targeting health concerns; and mandates on renewable energy adoption and efficiency standards.

I would need clarification of what you mean by strong, since for the regulations except for the just started GHR, people have been sent to jail, and audits of the receptive media show that pollution is down as measured in air, water, and groundwater that were regulated under the current regulations.

-- After reviewing the report required by subsection (a), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in concurrence with the Secretary of Agriculture, may, by regulation and after public notice and comment, modify the non-Federal lands portion of the definition of «renewable biomass» in sections 211 (o)(1)(I) and 700 of the Clean Air Act in order to advance the goals of increasing America's energy independence, protecting the environment, and reducing global warming pollution.

It's particularly important to account for all potential health benefits realized thanks to implementation of a federal regulation aimed at climate change mitigation since health co-benefits make up the majority share of near - term economic benefits caused by carbon pollution reduction.

-- After reviewing the report required by subsection (a), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in concurrence with the Secretary of Agriculture, may, by regulation and after public notice and comment, modify the non-Federal lands portion of the definition of «renewable biomass» in section 610 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 in order to advance the goals of increasing America's energy independence, protecting the environment, and reducing global warming pollution.

Whilst it is not yet clear that these parameters would adequately protect the health of vulnerable members of the community from the effects of chronic cumulative exposure, why are these limits for infrasound and low frequency noise exposure universally ignored by those members of the acoustics profession who have written the wind turbine noise pollution regulations for governments?

PS I agree that there need to be regulations prohibiting air pollution (i.e. ejecting substances into the atmosphere that are toxic to humans, animals or plants or are known to cause health problems), as requested by a democratically elected legislature or executive branch and their appointed agencies, but that is not «owning» the atmosphere IMO — it is simply «protecting» it, as an asset that is «owned» by everyone collectively.

That's partly because of a long campaign by fossil fuel interests to muddy the science on global warming and fight pollution regulation.

Owners of the plants have been squeezed by regulations forcing expensive pollution control upgrades at the same time cheaper sources of fuel have rendered the plants unprofitable.

«By the way, yes, my plan will reduce the carbon pollution that is eating our planet because climate change is not a hoax,» President Obama said at a campaign rally last week, absurdly portraying the essential gas CO2 exhaled by humans and consumed by plants as a «pollutant» in need of regulatioBy the way, yes, my plan will reduce the carbon pollution that is eating our planet because climate change is not a hoax,» President Obama said at a campaign rally last week, absurdly portraying the essential gas CO2 exhaled by humans and consumed by plants as a «pollutant» in need of regulatioby humans and consumed by plants as a «pollutant» in need of regulatioby plants as a «pollutant» in need of regulation.

Labeling issues such as reduced agricultural productivity, loss of biodiversity, pollution and the looming shortage of fresh water as «impacts of global warming» leaves the public confused and susceptible to propaganda by groups who oppose environmental regulation of any kind.

A cursory list might include: pollution of air, water and soil from billions of tons of toxic waste; declining biological and cultural diversity from the harvesting of natural resources; regulations that merely limit the poisoning of people and the environment; production and use of materials so dangerous they will require constant, costly vigilance from future generations; prosperity measured by activity not legacy.

If a US coal unit installs control technologies to meet the most stringent air pollution regulation, it could increase operating costs by 13 % when the capacity factor declines from 60 % to 40 %.

And the most obvious evidence of Exxon's pervasive efforts to attack science and pollution control regulations lies in the more than $ 30 million traced by Greenpeace researchers to several dozen think tanks and front groups working to confuse the public about the need to curb CO2 pollution.

In 2012, even as most of our leaders dodged or denied the climate change issue, we were busy tackling it from many angles — reducing carbon emissions by securing national air pollution regulations that clean up or phase out dirty plants and then defending these innovations in court when they are attacked by the polluters.

AP debunks Obama on climate claims: THE FACTS: «Obama failed to get a global warming bill through Congress when both Houses were controlled by Democrats in 2010» — AP: «With Republicans in control of the House, the chances of a bill to limit the gases blamed for global warming and to create a market for businesses to trade pollution credits are close to zero... And while there are still other ways to address climate change without Congress, it's questionable regulation alone can achieve the reductions needed to start curbing global warming»

This comes at the same time that United is being called out by industry watchdogs for its major role in lobbying against new regulations to begin curbing the massive amounts of climate pollution the airline industry is responsible for.

PGE was originally set to invest more than a half billion dollars in pollution controls (scrubbers) by 2017 to comply with EPA and state clean air regulations, then keep it running until 2040.

The EPA regulations, approved under President Obama, are designed to reduce emissions of mercury and other pollution up to 90 percent by requiring plant owners to install pollution control mechanisms.

54 % of coal is cashflow negative today increasing to 97 % by 2030 — making units reliant on lobbying to secure capacity market payments (which the European Commission wants to prohibit by 2025) and avoid air pollution regulations.

However, we find that falling renewable energy costs, air pollution regulations and rising carbon prices will continue to undermine the economics of coal power in the EU, potentially making generation assets unusable by 2030.

The ongoing US coal - to - gas transition is the result of three decades of federal investment in fracking technologies (and is helped along by environmental regulations that penalize coal pollution).

Conservative think - tanks are organisations that oppose policies, such as regulation of pollution by the fossil fuel industry (some have also opposed regulation of the tobacco industry in the past and, in fact, some continue to do so today).

Koch is co-owned by David Koch, founder of Americans for Prosperity, a group aligned with the Tea Party movement, which opposes new air pollution regulations.

Chevron and other giant energy companies are demanding a TTIP investment chapter that will allow them to sue governments if environmental or other regulations interfere with their expected future profits by, for example, restricting oil and gas drilling, imposing pollution and oil spill controls or constraining the use of hydraulic fracking techniques to extract natural gas and oil from shale formations.

The study upends more than half a century of research that assumed outdoor air pollution in cities was to blame for higher asthma rates — a hypothesis repeatedly used by EPA regulators to justify the agency's regulations.

Suppliers of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases, plus manufacturers of engines and vehicles, and facilities that release 25,000 tons or more of any of six heat - trapping gases, all must comply with the regulation, the first by the government on pollution blamed for global warming.

The conflict - of - interest scandal involving a climate denier secretly funded by the fossil - fuel industry is spreading to other academics who oppose regulation of climate pollution.

As a grassroots organization fighting for the protection and enjoyment of our ocean, waves and beaches, the Surfrider Foundation leans heavily on environmental programs and regulations administered by the EPA to ensure that the water that flows down to the beach is clean and free from pollution and that beachgoers have the information they need to avoid getting sick at the beach.

Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the CWA establishes regulations designed to protect the water from sources of pollution and sets forth water quality standards for contaminants.