Sentences with phrase «current use of fossil fuels»

The amount of available agricultural land is entirely insufficient for growing enough biomass to replace our current use of fossil fuels, but there is scope for more efficient use of existing biomass.

Especially because we probably won't live to see any negative consequences of our current use of fossil fuels — only our children and grandchildren will.

Retrograde Orbit wrote: «we probably won't live to see any negative consequences of our current use of fossil fuels — only our children and grandchildren will»

Not exact matches

To give some sense of the scale: most scientists estimate that merely to hold climatic disruption at its current Katrina - spawning level we'd need an immediate worldwide 70 percent reduction in fossil fuel use.

Development of cost - effective means to separate carbon dioxide during the production process will improve this advantage over other fossil fuels and enable the economic production of gas resources with higher carbon dioxide content that would be too costly to recover using current carbon capture technologies, Tour said.

He added that using solar cells and abundantly available elements to split water into hydrogen and oxygen has enormous potential for reducing the cost of hydrogen production and that the approach could eventually replace the current method, which relies on fossil fuels.

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.

The new study suggests that some of these current uses will be affected over this century, depending on how much fossil fuel emissions increase or decrease.

Therefore, the Yearly Rate of Fossil Fuel Use doubles by 2050 Then it increases to almost three fold the current rate by 2100

Humanity must become aware of the urgent need to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources to avoid the catastrophic scenario of using coal as an energy source as well as to replace the current model of development for sustainable development, which, by reverse logistics, with the reuse, recovery and recycling of materials, thus reaching the so - called closed production cycle, could delay the exhaustion of natural resources of the planet Earth.

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.

Yet more evidence that the world has vast commercially - exploitable wind and solar energy resources, that are more than sufficient to produce more than enough electricity for all current uses, plus the electrification of ground transport, without fossil fuels or nuclear power.

Meanwhile, the Earth's current population can easily be supported — and comfortably so — with a fraction of humanity's current «resource» consumption, and with zero fossil fuel use.

As the effects, the true costs of our current fossil fuel use will be felt to the greatest extent in the future, it seems reasonable to pay the price for those costs now, not leave the debt for future generations to pay with higher cancer rates and global temperatures.

Justin Gillis has written a news article putting the paper in context with other recent research on Antarctic dynamics and sea level, as well as with policy debates about the current value of fossil fuels against the momentous costs that could attend greatly expanded use:

The path forward would of necessity require a mix of social, financial and scientific innovation that can help societies, here and abroad, use fossil fuels more sparingly and less harmfully; diffuse current cleaner energy technology faster and more broadly; and advance understanding on the frontiers of chemistry, biology and other sciences to give the best chance of breakthroughs that, in a decade or two, can provide a sustainable energy menu for generations to come.

Current attempts by national governments worldwide to control industrial CO2 emissions following the recommendations of the IPCC could be viewed within the scientific paradigm as the projection of a large scale experiment on the earth's climate system to validate the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes (inter alia) are a major factor driving climate change.

Their enormous volumes of water can not become acidic — that is, plummet from an 8.2 pH level 150 years ago and their current 8.1 pH into the acidic realm of 7.0 or lower, due to the tiny amount of atmospheric CO2 attributable to fossil fuel use, in less than five centuries.

Given that humans are currently pulling 17 tW from the earth, as fossil fuels, and using another 30 tW for energy from food, our current needs are already a big proportion of the total «free energy» available.

On the point of the use of fossil fuels to produce alternatives, that's rather obvious, as that is the current fuel system, the current starting point for any future.

Only in the past few decades have scientists begun the measurements necessary to establish a relationship between current carbon levels and temperatures, and the science conducted since then has consistently pointed in one direction: that rising greenhouse gas emissions, arising from our use of fossil fuels and our industries, lead to higher temperatures.

Detailed analysis of the results suggests that year - round surface emissions of CO, probably from fossil fuel burning in East Asia, and seasonal biomass burning emissions in South - central Africa, are greatly underestimated in current inventories used to drive models.

According to them, unless the current pace of fossil fuel use changes, the world is bound to experience an abrupt climate shift.

The next level is 903ppm on current trends it will take us about 257 years to get there, do you think we will still be using fossil fuels as our main source of energy in 2267?

Indeed, as I argue in this article, I think it will be absolutely essential that we shift much of our current wasteful fossil fuel use (e.g., shipping the same goods back and forth across the ocean, driving gas - powered private automobiles, and producing disposable consumer goods) toward building new infrastructure for long - term resilience (e.g., local food economies, low - energy housing, greenspace, water catchment and storage, clean energy systems, trains, and, yes, wind - powered sea vessels!).

In terms of the estimates of reserves of fossil fuels, the RCP8.5 model uses (roughly, by my own calculations using the figures given in Table SPM - 3 of the GEA report) twice the current coal reserves, two to three times the oil reserves and half of the gas reserves.

The current rate of increase of CO2 resulting from the current rate of increase of fossil fuel use will produce a doubling of the CO2 concentration in 100 + years and perhaps a 2C increase.

If you would relate that to the global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use of 2014, which amounted to 32.3 billion tonnes — Indonesian forest fires during the current Super El Niño have the potential to add 10 - 29 % of extra CO2 to the world's fossil fuel - related emissions.

«We have to learn as much as we can from photosynthesis, in other words what goes on in leafy plants, because that's where most of our energy has otherwise come from in terms of fossil fuels or current kinds of carbon materials that we use either as food or fuel,» MacFarlane said.

«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.

If we want to limit the amount of carbon - dioxide in the atmosphere and stay below 2 °C, we'll have to replace about 80 percent of our current fossil - fuel use with carbon - free energy and then use only carbon - free energy to meet our future needs.

«Do you believe the Sun and natural causes may have more to do with cycles the Earth is going through, including the current one, than mankind's use of fossil fuel?»

A carbon intensity policy would thus not only encourage more efficient use of fossil fuels, as the current energy intensity goal does, but also amplify China's already ambitious targets on renewable energy deployment.

The primary case against expansion of current fossil fuel use involves the risk from anthropogenic climate change.

In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II in Rio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates: It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air - conditioning, and suburbanhousing — are not sustainable.

In 1986 NASA climate scientist James Hansen — one of the world's most prominent critics of the use of fossil fuels — predicted that «if current trends are unchanged,» temperatures would rise 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s.

Ellie Johnston: «Under a scenario where emissions continue at the current pace, most of the pollution growth comes from the anticipated increase in fossil fuel use by developing nations.»

The drive to achieve net - zero emissions from all fossil fuel use within perhaps 50 years or less will be a challenging but vital job for the current generation, and many future generations, of CCS workers and researchers.

The current proposition offered by climate alarmists is that if people who live in the more wealthy countries cut back their use of fossil fuels and therefore their human - caused CO2 emissions that the world can avoid the alleged catastrophic increases in temperatures based on the climate models.

At current annual rates of ~ 41 Gt CO2 for fossil fuels, industrial and land - use emissions combined (Le Quéré et al 2017), time is running out on our ability to keep global average temperature increases below 2 °C and, even more immediately, anything close to 1.5 °C (Rogelj et al 2015).

Past emissions of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed about three - quarters of the current RF, with the remainder caused by land use changes.

This price is competitive with the wholesale cost of producing electricity using fossil fuels and a fraction of the current cost of solar energy.

And yet, in the face of global warming caused by fossil fuel use, the current administration has so far moved sluggishly to address our addiction to these fuels and its damaging dovetail with public lands management.

Regardless of whether early land use significantly affected global climate, understanding the global role of land use in determining the onset and magnitude of anthropogenic climate change is critical for gauging the climatic impact of current and future modifications of the terrestrial biosphere, including efforts to offset fossil fuel emissions by reducing deforestation (114).

This study focuses on current specifications, with comparisons to international norms, of gasoline, diesel and fuel oil; on measures adopted for improving the quality of such fuels and for reducing emissions, particularly the elimination of lead from gasoline, and the reduction of sulphur in gasoline and diesel; on expected economic and environmental benefits of using cleaner fossil fuels; and on barriers facing the production and use of cleaner fuels.

In the keynote speech at the Conference he organized, he said: «Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work - place air - conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.»

This broad «Target Goal» being the ONLY rational solution for ameliorating climate change into the future = cutting fossil fuel use to 10 % of the current use by ~ 2050.

For the first time, the report mentioned projections of climate change beyond 2100 and painted a picture of a bleak world, possibly unrecognizable to those living today, should fossil fuel use continue on its current trajectory.

Although solar (mainly PV) is the largest single energy source by that time, total carbon consumed through fossil fuel use amounts to 800 billion tonnes carbon by the end of the century, just a bit less than current proven reserves (900 billion tonnes as indicated above).

When you state «On current fossil fuel energy use forecasts we run out of the remaining 250 GtC Carbon Budget to remain under a 2 C rise around 2033 or in 20 years.»