Sentences with phrase «continuing use of fossil fuels»

Meanwhile the continuing use of fossil fuels has caused changes in global weather patterns.

It concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had already increased by about 25 percent in the past century, and continued use of fossil fuels would lead to substantial temperature increases in the future.

Continued use of fossil fuels into the 21st century is predicted to lead to atmospheric CO2 levels > 900 ppm by 2100 (under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5; Meinshausen et al., 2011), though the precise level is highly dependent on the emission scenario (Pachauri et al., 2014).

Using these much smaller, observationally based climate sensitivities, the projected warming from continued use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable future.

Human emissions are the majority source of warming in this current climate change and that continued use of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic change too quickly for us to adapt to.

To minimize the continued use of fossil fuels, we also need to find another source of chemical feed - stocks.

This means that the availability of fossil fuels does not limit the potential application of CO2 capture and storage; CCS would provide a way of limiting the environmental impact of the continued use of fossil fuels.

Of course this argument goes far more for fossil fuels and if the choice were simply between continued use of fossil fuels or a wholesale switch to nuclear then I have absolutely no doubt that the latter would be the preferable option.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

As global temperatures rise on average in the coming decades — as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase with the continued use of fossil fuels — so regions such as the American southwest will experience greater extremes of heat and longer periods of drought.

We know that, we've known it for decades, and we know that continued use of fossil fuels will cause enormous worldwide economic and social consequences.

House subcommittee hearing features testimony from people who have received funding from fossil fuel interests and primarily advocate for the continued use of fossil fuels over renewable energy.

Pristine air, as provided by wind turbines and solar panels, creates far more wealth than the continuing use of fossil fuel.

Not exact matches

Elon Musk is very enthusiastic in pushing for the widespread use of solar energy to replace fossil fuels, so it was no surprise that the Tesla continues to focus on improving its technology for energy storage — if the car manufacturer's gigafactory is any indication of that.

We're at a line in the sand here, where we can continue blindly marching over the cliff, or we can get a grip: ramp down fossil fuel use immediately, get an economic system geared to fixing up the mess we've made instead of enriching the few who already have far more than enough, nourish an ideology of cooperation instead of competition, and put the technology to more intelligent uses than convenience and mindless diversion.

Of course they will continue to use equipment that consumes fossil fuels; but on small, diversified, labor - intensive farms, the quantity used will be greatly reduced.

Released to the public in June 2017, the latest corrugated industry life cycle assessment (LCA) confirms continued environmental progress through increased efficiencies in mill energy systems, increased use of low - impact fossil fuels, and increased recovery for recycling.

As the planet has continued to expand its use of fossil fuel and bring a Western lifestyle to all, the collateral damage has accumulated.

There is now adequate empirical evidence available around the world: Wherever people have brought about more efficient use of energy and greater use of renewable energy, you generate many more jobs than if you were to continue with conventional technologies and fossil fuels.

Undertaken by University of Adelaide in collaboration with CSIRO, the research could make viable a process that has enormous potential to replace fossil fuels and continue to use existing carbon - based fuel technologies without increasing atmospheric CO2.

Scientists expect this doubling to occur later this century if nations continue to burn fossil fuels as they do now — the «business as usual» scenario — instead of curtailing fossil - fuel use.

To sustainably support grid - scale storage will require continued reductions in the amount of fossil fuel used to manufacture photovoltaic cells.»

This is the rise in air temperature expected by the year 2040, if current trends in the use of fossil fuels and forest - burning continue.

Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues [9].

Scientists need to explain to the public that while they continue to study the details of anthropogentic global warming and consequent climate change, that we already know enough to be certain that continued unmitigated warming will be a disaster for all humanity, and that we urgently need to phase out all fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.

I think, had Exxon continued in that role, there might not be such a cacophony of anti-climate arguments that are ongoing now because there would have been somebody at the table who came from the side of fossil fuel use and would have been shown to be a leader in terms of the science and this was their reasoned opinion as to what was going on.

Both countries sit on vast deposits of this ancient fossil fuel and energy analysts see decades of continued use.

SA — As much as I admire your views and contributions here, I'm sure you understand solutions to any of the myriad problems facing the planet will not be solved in 5 years, particularly with «zero fossil fuel use», which would mean no more plastic food packaging, minimal, if any of the vital chemical compounds common to our «modern» lifestyle, and few of the medicines currently insuring our extended lifetimes and continuing population growth.

The bigger problems of fossil fuel use are continuing and a long term effort to replace that is beset with all kinds of problems that are a combination of corporate interests, mindset, and science, coupled with the will to get it together.

Cost of these alternative sources are cheaper than continuing to use irreplaceable fossil fuels or dangerous (both materially and policically) radioactive materials.

Fossil fuel interests are using their clout at the White House and in Congress to sabotage every renewable energy program that comes along, while make sure massive government subsidies, on the order of $ 100 billion a year when you count it all up, continue to flow to the fossil fuel industry (U.S. military expenditures are $ 500 billion a year, and good chunk of that is devoted to protecting overseas oilfields, for exaFossil fuel interests are using their clout at the White House and in Congress to sabotage every renewable energy program that comes along, while make sure massive government subsidies, on the order of $ 100 billion a year when you count it all up, continue to flow to the fossil fuel industry (U.S. military expenditures are $ 500 billion a year, and good chunk of that is devoted to protecting overseas oilfields, for exafossil fuel industry (U.S. military expenditures are $ 500 billion a year, and good chunk of that is devoted to protecting overseas oilfields, for example).

flxible wrote: ``... «zero fossil fuel use», which would mean no more plastic food packaging, minimal, if any of the vital chemical compounds common to our «modern» lifestyle, and few of the medicines currently insuring our extended lifetimes and continuing population growth...»

Continue spending 1 - 2 % of global GDP on subsidies that lead to unsustainable environmental practices, prop up fossil fuels, pesticide use, unsustainable fishing practices.

In this century, given continuing growth in the use of fossil fuels, many climate scientists see the concentration exceeding 450 parts per million or even 550 parts per million before stabilizing and — someday, perhaps — declining.

Promoting energy sustainability means that as an individual I need to think beyond the light bulb, and not only promote renewable energy initiatives in my community, but also reduce my consumptive patterns, reuse as much material as possible, consider the embodied energy used to produce my food, and continue minimizing my use of fossil fuels.

«All this adds up to what scientists expect to be a gradual slowing of ocean CO2 uptake if human fossil fuel use continues to accelerate.»

The «moral hazard» argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a «Trojan horse» that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect of cost - effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point in the future we'll have the CDR techniques to remove these present - day emissions).

Instead, a «pre-pay» carbon policy would let the market decide whether it is more economically efficient to transition to non-fossil sources of energy or to pay for removal credits needed to continue using fossil fuels.

«Even if we were able to use productive plants such as poplar trees or switchgrass, and store 50 % of the carbon contained in their biomass, in the business - as - usual scenario of continued, unconstrained fossil fuel use, the sheer size of the plantations for staying at or below 2 °C of warming would cause devastating environmental consequences,» Boysen says.

They didn't want to be seen as advocate only of continuing to use fossil fuels.

If companies or individual building owners are serious about combating climate change and / or reducing carbon emissions then their is NO possible way to continue to use any form of combustion based, fossil fuel, systems of any kind!

It's a facile argument, designed to downplay the seriousness of global warming and its connection to CO2 emissions and to promote continued fossil fuel use.

So we shall soon see what the real climate sensitivity is, as the resultant CO2 levels of production from those who have NO INTENTION of slowing down their coal and oil consumption, continue to ramp up their use of fossil fuels.

Ashton, there is no doubt that the misinformation campaigns conducted by those who have a vested interest in the continuing unabated use of fossil fuels have been very effective, thank you for confirming that.

In any case, I and a few others will continue to use mathematical models of fossil fuel depletion to anticipate what the future production levels of place such as the Bakken formation hold for oil and natural gas.

Fossil fuels are and will continue to be cheaper, easier to use, more portable, and more dense than any combination of solar / batteries or wind / batteries.

I have taken the expected sharp drop in population growth into account and have estimated that the per capita use of fossil fuels would continue to increase, reaching a 30 % higher level by 2100 compared to today (it grew by 20 % over the past 40 years).

The public has known for decades of the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming, yet society has continued to use oil and natural gas because there are still no alternatives that match their low - cost, their energy density, and their dispatchability.

I expect those who advocate divestment themselves continue to use fossil fuels as their main sources of energy in their day - to - day lives — automobiles, trains, planes, electricity, petrochemicals, thermoplastics, modern pharmaceuticals... and the list goes on.

To me this would appear to be a worst case scenario, based on the least developed economies building up energy infrastructures largely using fossil fuels, in order to pull their populations out of poverty, as China and India are doing today (thereby reducing their rate of population growth as they become more affluent and improving their carbon efficiencies) and the remaining societies continuing to improve their overall carbon efficiencies as they have already been doing.