Sentences with phrase «cheaper than climate»

Suddenly wind, solar, and geothermal will become much cheaper than climate - disrupting fossil fuels.

Not exact matches

Obviously you are safer buying compounded earnings cheap than dear, because if you have a stock at eighteen or four - teen or eleven times earnings, and it takes a very damp climate indeed to suppress a record at those ratios.

It said that the new Pro Fam soya isolates and Arcon soya concentrates can work out at around 20 per cent cheaper than skim milk powder and caseinates in the current climate.

That's why we have to look at the balance in terms of what is cheaper: Can we reduce emissions of greenhouse gases today so that we can stabilize the earth's climate, rather than adapt to the impacts of climate change and incur much higher costs over a period of time?

Professional anti-bullying training and decreasing racism are not only cheaper than leaving the system as it is, but would also promote an inclusive climate for everyone.»

As future climate changes become more severe, people might become interested in ways of offsetting the effects of human - induced climate, which could be cheaper than measures to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

-- but $ upercapitalist seems more doomed than most, as an on - the - cheap attempt to update the moral drama of Wall Street for the current economic climate.

The appearance is terrific, but the switchgear and the materials seem cheaper than the old car's: the climate - control buttons, for instance, are no - where near as good as a VW Jetta «s.

Here are the bits and pieces replaced: Transmission, Tie rods, steering system, A / C compressor, All pwr windows, Cam sensor, Alternator, Crank sensor, control arms, Stereo and speakers, pwr window switches (x3), coolant reservoir, idler pulleys (x2), climate control, valve cover seals, blower motor and blower motor resistor (rusted), air vent covers (cheap plastic), door panels, starter.This vehicle has cost me more in repairs than any vehicle I owned!

A bonus for guests is that, in this increasingly cost - conscious climate, what better — and cheaper — way to visit the famously - expensive highlights of Scandinavia than by cruise ship, where there are no worries about flights, hotel accommodation, food or drink?

Even if the bill is cheaper than Republican foes assert, even if provisions added to satisfy particular constituencies don't blunt its impact on emissions, as some worry, even if the Senate moves and President Obama signs a climate bill into law, will it matter to the climate?

However, as this article will show, Monckton's assumption is incorrect - preventing climate change is significantly cheaper than adapting to it.

Conservative think tanks that once championed geoengineering as easier and cheaper than cutting emissions have now all aligned with the view that the human impact on climate is so small that we don't even have to worry about it.

However, there is no need for us to understand it as a problem to see the backwards thinking that has produced the climate and energy policies that now put expensive «negawatts» further up the political agenda than cheaper megawatts.

Fossil fuels — whose greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change — are more widely available than clean energy, and they are usually cheaper, due to ongoing subsidies.

With many renewable sources of power, like wind, now cheaper than fossil fuels, it has become clear that preventing global climate change is green in all definitions of the word.

If it proves cheaper and easier than expected (as has generally been the case for complying with environmental regulation), then the price of emitting carbon can be raised more quickly, reducing climate risks further.

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.

Lovins also states, «Climate change is a problem we do not need to have, and it is cheaper not to (have it)... Once people understand climate protection puts money back into your pocket because you do not have to buy all that fuel, the political resistance will melt faster than the glaciers.Climate change is a problem we do not need to have, and it is cheaper not to (have it)... Once people understand climate protection puts money back into your pocket because you do not have to buy all that fuel, the political resistance will melt faster than the glaciers.climate protection puts money back into your pocket because you do not have to buy all that fuel, the political resistance will melt faster than the glaciers.»

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.

For decades the climate alarm movement has been pushing «solutions» that would handicap fossil fuels rather than make alternative energy more competitive — that is, cheaper without costly subsidies.

It's a bit cheap, given that there's no evidence or even likelihood, that actual climate scientists are responsible for this hoax, to say that jumping to very firm conclusions on very little evidence, and indeed fraudulently improving the evidence that doesn't quite show what you want it to, are characteristic of one side of this debate rather than the other.

The report urged governments to take urgent action now to tackle climate change, arguing that it would be much cheaper to act, rather than face the $ 10 trillion cost of not doing anything until later.

Given that CO2 levels are bound to keep rising in any case, I would really rather research grants went more towards R&D of new cheap, reliable and clean energy sources, than on climate science, fascinating though it is.

And although «weather improvement» is not quite the same thing as «solving» climate change — here we get to a big parallel with the more globally ambitious forms of geoengineering, especially the SRM techniques that seek to create a compensating cooling effect on a planetary scale: they are (likely) much cheaper than emissions reductions.

While he says categorically that the prospect of geoengineering should never provide polluters or governments a «get out of jail free card» to avoid their absolute duty to drastically cut CO2 emissions, he maintains that «climate change could actually be reversed with the help of geoengineering, and it would be far simpler, safer and cheaper than trying to adapt to ever worsening climate change, and sea level rise to boot.»

However, as SkepticalScience noted, it is not necessarily cheaper to adapt to climate change than to combat it.

To suggest that coastlines aren't quite as perilous as green activists claim, that the government shouldn't be picking winners, or that cheaper energy might be more helpful to poor people than mitigating climate change was to «deny science», and to be victim of some horrific right wing ideology that would make Hitler's crimes against humanity look like a summer picnic... Climate sceptics were inviting certaiclimate change was to «deny science», and to be victim of some horrific right wing ideology that would make Hitler's crimes against humanity look like a summer picnic... Climate sceptics were inviting certaiClimate sceptics were inviting certain doom.

Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded based on academic research.

I'm confident that humans will adapt to climate change, just not that it will be cheaper than reducing emissions.

• How many human lives could be saved by cheaper methods, such as scrubbers, rather than focusing on improving human health through solutions which have co-benefits for the climate?

But, above all, I'm left with this thought: we, as a country and as a world, seem to have ignored the advice of the 2006 Stern review, that acting fast on climate change would be cheaper than coping with the consequences.

The superpower nuclear standoff gave us fifty years of relative peace, we had cheap energy from inherent over-supply of oil, grain supply increased faster than population growth and the climate warmed due to the highest solar activity for 8,000 years.

Thus, taking action to stabilize climate change is cheaper than doing nothing.

See also::: Combating Climate Change Cheaper Than Originally Thought,:: Subsidizing Climate Change Image courtesy of Kolleggerium via flickr

Storing energy as heat is also 20 - 100 times cheaper than storing electricity in batteries, according to Joseph Romm at Climate Progress.

If cheap shale gas crowds out renewables or increases energy demand more than IEA predicts, or methane leaks are worse than we think, cheap shale gas will actually hasten climate emissions, even in the short term (2035).

The costs of dealing with climate change are going to be enormous, as numerous climate economists have shown, and it would be much cheaper to mitigate its impacts than wait to grapple with adapting to a much warmer, more volatile world.

Spending less than half a percent (1/4 sq mi) to a little over 1 % (1 sq mi) of the annual climate change budget from just 1 year, to deploy a real climate change measuring network is pretty cheap for honest data.

The increase comes largely from the fact that fossil fuels are cheaper than even the lowest possibility envisaged by the late and unlamented Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Economists have calculated that it will be cheaper to halt climate change than to suffer its consequences.