Sentences with phrase «change than the coal»

Looking into LNG, the liquefied form that's being shipped out from the U.S. as you read this, will offer much better gains under Trump's changes than any coal investment could.

More than enough, as we shall see, to make fracking worse for climate change than the coal it was replacing.

Not exact matches

China itself is suppressing its appetite for coal, albeit more for reasons of pollution than climate change.

There are reports that oil, coal and gas industries in America have invested more than half a billion dollars on lobbying against acting on climate change.

In March 2009, while Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Miliband attended the UK premiere of climate change film The Age of Stupid, where he was ambushed by actor Pete Postlethwaite, who threatened to return his OBE and vote for any party other than Labour if the Kingsnorth coal - fired power station were to be given the go - ahead by the goverChange, Miliband attended the UK premiere of climate change film The Age of Stupid, where he was ambushed by actor Pete Postlethwaite, who threatened to return his OBE and vote for any party other than Labour if the Kingsnorth coal - fired power station were to be given the go - ahead by the goverchange film The Age of Stupid, where he was ambushed by actor Pete Postlethwaite, who threatened to return his OBE and vote for any party other than Labour if the Kingsnorth coal - fired power station were to be given the go - ahead by the government.

The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from «In fact, fly ash — a by - product from burning coal for power — and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste» to «In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant — a by - product from burning coal for electricity — carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.»

Vattenfall has high hopes for clean coal, but the company regards this process as a bridge to renewable - energy technologies rather than a permanent solution to climate change.

Changes in forest management and agricultural practices could significantly reduce the threat of global warming much more quickly than can technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal - fired power plants, according to experts.

It's less costly to get electricity from wind turbines and solar panels than coal - fired power plants when climate change costs and other health impacts are factored in, according to a new study published in Springer's Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural - gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest - burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.

But burning natural gas results in half the greenhouse gas pollution than coal, making it appealing as fuel in an era of combating climate change.

Though burning natural gas produces much less greenhouse gas emissions than burning coal, a new study indicates switching over coal - fired power plants to natural gas would have a negligible effect on the changing climate.

December 8, 2017 India's steel industry, like America's, is dominated by electric - based processes November 20, 2017 Link between growth in economic activity and electricity use is changing around the world November 16, 2017 Growth in global energy - related carbon dioxide emissions expected to slow November 8, 2017 EIA forecasts growth in world nuclear electricity capacity, led by non-OECD countries October 25, 2017 China leads the growth in projected global natural gas consumption October 10, 2017 Buildings energy consumption in India is expected to increase faster than in other regions October 4, 2017 Global gas - to - liquids growth is dominated by two projects in South Africa and Uzbekistan September 27, 2017 Chinese coal - fired electricity generation expected to flatten as mix shifts to renewables September 19, 2017 Beyond China and India, energy consumption in non-OECD Asia continues to grow September 14, 2017 EIA projects 28 % increase in world energy use by 2040

The researchers looked at more than 800 U.S. cases involving climate change or coal - fired power plants between 1990 and 2016, and found a dramatic rise in both the number of climate cases and the proportion that relied on scientific evidence, according to first author Sabrina McCormick, a sociologist at George Washington University in Washington.

What I find ironic is that it is his can - do optimism that is in this case working against our ability to do something about our dependence on fossil fuels and the climate change that this dependence is resulting in, that is, switching to alternate energy, preserving modern civilization and the world economy beyond Peak Oil and Peak Coal, preventing climate change from becoming such a huge problem that it destroys that the world economy — and more than likely leads to a series of highly destructive wars over limited resources.

~ 13 times less than land use changes (3.4 gigatons) ~ 11.5 times less than light - duty vehicles (3.0 gigatons) ~ 5.3 times less than concrete production (1.4 gigatons) ~ 2 dozen 1000 MW coal - fired power plants (2 % of the world's coal - fired electrical generation) Or, roughly the same CO2 emissions as Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Poland or South Africa.

There is no denying that the arctic is melting at a record - setting pace and that this is related to global warming and climate change, but Box is pursuing a theory that soot from wildfires and burning coal in power plants is making Greenland's glaciers melt even faster than they would because of global warming alone.

Since a big recession might hit coal - burning utilities» customers more than other utility customers (to name one example) or hit coal - using industries like cement and steel more than others, one has to look carefully not only at CO2 emissions changes but at underlying economic activity or personal activity changes and how those are tied to emissions in a disaggregated way.

# 253 Jerry it is only in recent times that Australian farmers are starting to come to terms with climate change, after more than a decade of denial from conservatives (and not much better from the new Labor government, who just love coal mines) and their supporters among farmers organisations etc..

However, in their recent publication in Climatic Change Letters, Howarth et al. (2011) report that their life - cycle evaluation of shale gas drilling suggests that shale gas has a larger GHG footprint than coal and that this larger footprint «undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over the coming decades».

What seems really dumb is that, faced with the overwhelming evidence of climate change, we would still be using taxpayer monies to subsidize oil and coal rather than renewable energy.

Explaining the driving factors of climate change, as the vast majority of scientists see them, is far easier than trying to explain a «clean coal» plant.

Energy prices will rise in the future, especially if we take climate change as seriously as it deserves; sustainable energy is more expensive than burning coal.

When burned, petcoke emits 5 - 10 % more climate change - causing CO2 than coal.

A new 1,000 - page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report appears to ignore both nuclear power and shale gas — even though both these energy sources emit far less CO2 than does coal.

Home to more than 300 coal mines but also on the frontline of rising seas, Virginia is split along familiar lines — between those who are seeking to keep the coal industry alive and those seeking cleaner energy alternatives and climate change solutions.

Maybe put some of it into citizens pockets directly, spend some on job creating industries rather than on old industries that are cutting staff (coal mining for example), maybe a dozen other things that looked impossible before you decided to change your spending patterns.

The simplest change would be to replace coal + CCS with nuclear (the UK government now seems to be chasing the mirage of Small Modular Reactors) but that is only marginally less unrealistic than CCS (a new post on this shortly, I hope).

Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters (105:5).

So it would be a good idea to get to the bottom of the discrepancies, especially since the countdown to dangerous climate change may be shorter than the lifetime of a new coal - fired power plant.

The energy system reference cases used for future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission pathways in climate change research are a case in point: baseline emission scenarios commonly project levels of coal combustion many times higher than current reserve estimates by the year 2100.

The solar industry has been suggesting the scheme be changed, particularly in light of the 50 per cent reduction in module costs in the last 18 months, but it argued for a staged reduction to avoid havoc in the industry, and to end with a tariff that reflected the value of the solar put back into the grid (i.e. give it a value greater than coal).

If climate change continues to have a negative impact on these tourism spots and natural wonders, it could have a huge effect on the local economy, too, as tourism is Australia's second-most valuable export, employing more than 580,000 people — 15 times more than the coal mining industry.

The narrower rule would focus on obtaining efficiency improvements through better heat rates at coal plants — an «inside the fenceline» regulation, rather than a sweeping change to the national power mix.

She seems to have no concern for anything (such as the future of the planet with climate change damage or the huge environmental and health problems caused by the coal industry) other than getting her way;

J&D project that when accounting for the costs associated with air pollution and climate change, all the WWS technologies they consider will be cheaper than conventional energy sources (including coal) by 2020 or 2030, and in fact onshore wind is already cheaper.

And the greenhouse gas emissions from coal have contributed significantly to climate change, a risk that is unfathomably worse than the worst case dangers of nuclear power.

4) Will policies aimed at reducing the use of coal and oil be more or less cost - effective than policies aimed at adaptation to forecast changes as they emerge?

As for costs, J&D project that when accounting for the costs associated with air pollution and climate change, all the WWS technologies they consider will be cheaper than conventional energy sources (including coal) by 2020 or 2030, and in fact onshore wind is already cheaper.

Recently, BHP Billiton said it was preparing to quit the World Coal Association over a stance on climate change the mining giant regarded as less than constructive.

Finally onto point # 2 from above, not only can one adapt to a change similar to 1920's - > 1930's natural change over a ten year time span, we can also succesfully hold down temperatures with aerosols (if you're skeptical of this, you can't blame the current flat line on China's coal then, because we can surely do aerosols better when they are a deliberate end, rather than as an unintended by - product.)

Usual investment criteria may not deliver the super low - cost, clean, renewable energy soon enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change,» said Dr. Larry Brilliant, Executive Director of Google.org, Google's philanthropic arm, «Google.org's hope is that by funding research on promising technologies, investing in promising new companies, and doing a lot of R&D ourselves, we may help spark a green electricity revolution that will deliver breakthrough technologies priced lower than coal.»

«But these liquid fuels emit even more carbon dioxide than oil, so the end of oil can mean an increase in coal and even more carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, and even more rapid onset of dangerous climate change.»

Both will still produce power that is more expensive than coal, but Google believes that this will change with continued investment in the technologies used and with others coming on board as companies begin to realise the benefits to be gained.

In a joint statement issued ahead of the G20 conference in China this weekend, insurers with more than USD$ 1.2 trillion in assets under management warn that support for the production of coal, oil, and gas is at odds with the nations» commitment to tackle climate change agreed in Paris last December.

Without the exaggerated alarm conjured from overly pessimistic climate model projections of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels — coal, oil, gas — would regain their image as the celebrated agents of prosperity that they are, rather than being labeled as pernicious agents of our destruction.

And the lower - than - expected cost of sulfur dioxide regulation mostly resulted from technological changes that occurred well before the establishment of pollution trading: rail deregulation allowed for the economic shipment of low - sulfur coal, and the development of cheaper scrubbers.

Emissions from coal - fired power plants and other industrial concerns in China have made it the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, putting more climate - changing gases into the atmosphere each year than the US and the European Union combined.

But that is more than counterbalanced by a combination of declining use of coal and reductions in energy demand from structural changes in the Chinese economy, with energy - guzzling heavy industries such as cement and steel production both declining.

All the law did was require coal plants to use them, a change that had very little impact on consumers, who were more concerned then about acid rain than they are today about global warming.