Sentences with phrase «carbon ration»

Individuals would be allotted 40 % of the national total carbon ration, and the remaining 60 % would be held by the government for its use and to auction to corporations to the highest bidder.

See for example the excellent «Carbon Diaries 2015» by Sci Lloyd (Hodder), which, like Fay Weldon's «Chalcot Crescent», uses a grim low carbon ration - imposed future as its backdrop.

At a climate skeptic conference, writes Hoffman, one presenter «went so far as to suggest that a binding international agreement on climate change would end with individuals being required to carry «carbon ration cards» on their person.»

The UK may need to introduce carbon rationing within three years if cuts in carbon emissions are not achieved, an influential think tank has warned.

He first proposed personal carbon rationing in 1990, citing it as the only realistic way by which the world's population could prevent catastrophic climate change.

Laura, a 16 - year - old Londoner, chronicles a year in the very near future, during which global - warming - induced carbon rationing dramatically alters how her country operates.

In contrast, carbon rationing is a mechanism that directly limits the sale of fuels, and can be implemented with little lead time as was done in the UK & US in WW - II.

We need a lively debate on whether to leave these kinds of climate science efforts behind, and focus instead on socio - political measures to «hit the brakes hard» — whether those be carbon taxes, carbon rationing (probably the most direct and effective means), or whatever.

Maybe electricity was too cheap to worry about — that was before the carbon rationing.

We believe that supporting C&C; in the UK requires adoption of carbon rationing, with a tradeable ability, not green taxation.

Here is Lucas, speaking at a recent debate held by the World Development Movement, setting out her case for carbon rationing, trading and «equality» and selling her argument for «equality» in such (pseudo) scientific terms.

The «precautionary principle» ignores real negative effects of carbon rationing, particularly in lesser developed countries.

What about all of the additional children who will die from dysentery between 2030 and 2070 because their communities couldn't afford to put in improved sanitation and drainage systems that would have been installed had economic growth not been reduced as a result of carbon rationing?

In late 2009, the BBC reported that Anderson supported «carbon rationing like food rationing in wartime.»

While enthusiasts say, not unreasonably, that personal rationing schemes would have an immense educational value, making people aware of their carbon debts, some people are likely to see personal carbon rationing as yet another unwarranted government imposition.

Whether personal carbon rationing / trading will do this effectively and equitably remains uncertain.

Most «skeptics» have concluded, based on the available data, that the cost of «going to war» against CAGW (with carbon taxes, carbon rationing, top - down forced reductions in fossil fuel consumption, etc.) would be far greater than any «benefit» that might result, and would thus be «skeptical» of entering such a «war».

In the first part I explained Monbiot's argument that a carbon rationing system was needed — that voluntary, technological and free - market solutions were not viable.

The key mechanism for enforcement of Monbiot's solution is a carbon rationing system, using a second «currency» (Monbiot calls it «icecaps» to remind us of its purpose) allocated equally to each consumer on our electricity, home fuel and transportation fuel usage.

The full details of the report are far too long to list here, but recommendations include a near total shift to electric - powered modes of transport, the introduction of tradeable personal carbon rations, and a large reduction in the farming of livestock.

In his new book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, British environmental thinker and activist George Monbiot claims that some form of carbon rationing will be necessary to make a real dent in global emissions.

And then there is the article discussing whether carbon rationing or carbon taxes might be a better bet than the emission trading scheme that Australia is soon expected to embrace.

Not exact matches

And, as the IPCC report makes abundantly clear, in the future when carbon will effectively be rationed then low carbon will be a precondition of trade.

«Now the government may need to think about rationing carbon if we are to win the fight against climate change.»

The carbon buildup occurs because the AFR (Air Fuel Ration) is too rich.

The mega carbon ceramic brakes are standard equipment, but you'll want to tick the option boxes to ensure your Spyder leaves the factory fitted with the magneto - rheological dampers and LDS, Lamborghini Dynamic Steering, the company's variable assist, variable ration steering system.

In summary, we should not be advocating carbon taxes, geo - engineering, or rationing of fuel.

I could see a system where adults get a set ration of free carbon.

Your last two paragraphs started with the proper solution, a global price on carbon, but veered off into a rationing by country argument.

A firm schedule for rationing can be established at the outset, for an agreed carbon budget.

Despite proponents» claims that early action crediting was a «third way» between the Kyoto Protocol and «inaction,» the policy was a less - than - subtle strategy to establish the accounting framework for a carbon cap - and - trade system and grow a corporate lobby for Kyoto - style energy - rationing.

1ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!?? Renewable energy mandates (a.k.a. soviet style productions quotas) and «a cap» on carbon emissions (a.k.a. Soviet style energy rationing) ARE NOT «market signals»!!!! They are tools with which the government picks and chooses winners in the enrgy industry.

3Due to business as usual decisions on manufacturing processes, DuPont stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in «early action» carbon credits under a cap - and - trade energy rationing system.

So, once we clear away the underbrush, we can see that the case for a carbon tax or a cap - and - trade emissions rationing system is really that it would be a hedge against the risk that actual damages from warming would be much, much worse than current risk - adjusted projections indicate.

Indeed, today we are not even considering an actual U.S. carbon tax, which is preferred by almost all academic economists for this purpose, but instead a cap - and - trade system (i.e., emissions rationing) because it is more politically palatable to hide the costs to consumers this way.

If they don't enact a stiff tax on carbon in 2021; and if they don't start using the full legal authority of the Clean Air Act to regulate all sources of carbon emissions — implementing what is in effect a carbon fuel rationing scheme — then they can be rightly accused of being totally dishonest and hypocritical in claiming to be concerned about the impacts of climate change.

There is a suggestion that the effects depend on the mixing ration with black carbon — higher ratios favouring more warming rather than cooling.

The Kyoto Protocol and similar domestic schemes to ration carbon - based energy use would do little to slow carbon dioxide emissions, but would have enormous costs.»

The Prospects For Personal Carbon Trading, says that since «unlike food rations during the war, carbon credits would be tradeable» and «that could give an edge».

«There are no off - the - shelf technologies to address carbon, only fuel - switching regardless of expense or energy rationing,» the group writes.

How governments choose to ration, restrict, or penalize the carbon - based fuels that supply 85 % of U.S. and global energy — or, in Somerville's words, how governments compel «large and rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions» — is a subordinate issue.

If Figueres and her UN cohorts have their way, a «carbon budget» will be foisted upon the entire planet, with draconian CO2 rationing to control all human activity.

Any allocated carbon credits (that is, ration coupons)... would be useless if discretionary permits are required.»

TreeHugger keeps saying that one of the best things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint is to eat less meat; in the UK some are even proposing that it be rationed.

How buildings are used, in energy terms, is becoming a crucial issue: energy costs are rising; various policy drivers (such as display energy certificates) mean that there is increasing awareness of the environmental impact of the built environment; and the pricing and rationing from the CRC (carbon reduction commitment) will begin to bite over the next few years.