Sentences with phrase «cutting down forests»

Poor people cause climate change by cutting down forests, slash and burn agriculture, burning wood and dung, burning kerosene, etc..

The current trajectory of biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is being driven by cutting down forests, over-fishing, chemical pollution, soil degradation and erosion, habitat destruction, desertification and so on.

Cutting down forests for wood fuel has a carbon impact that compares with fossil fuels and the IPCC scenarios don't really take any of that into account.

Deep decarbonization would require the banning of the consumption of all meat (agriculture currently is directly or indirectly (due to cutting down forests to grow food to feed to animals which are then eaten and the CH4 emitted by the animals, and so on for 18 % of the CO2 emissions.)

The article points out that instead of saving the planet, it is cutting down forests to make room.

Global Warming (1999) By burning fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — and cutting down forests, we are releasing gases that are thickening a heat - trapping blanket around the Earth.

The rise in greenhouse gases corresponds with the extra amount of CO2 known to have been emitted by human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests.

When we're burning fossil fuels, it means we're not burning something else and cutting down forests.

Since 1750, we have emitted about 580 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and making cement.

Cutting down forests has reduced the planet's CO2 absorption capacity, and other land use changes have had a net forcing effect on climate.

And besides the «natural» contributors, we have human ones associated with cutting down forests and burning fossil fuels.

Globally at the time, humans were cutting down forests for agriculture, driving carbon into the atmosphere (vegetation stores carbon, so trees and shrubs are what scientists call «carbon sinks»).

For example, ancient Greeks and 19th - century Americans debated how cutting down forests might bring more rainfall to a region, or perhaps less.

In destroying ecosystems, e.g. cutting down forests and managing agricultural soils unsustainably, the globe has been losing a significant quantity of soil carbon over the last 8000 years, since -LSB-...]

Perhaps we should be cutting down our forests to allow our more active plant - forms, currently lying dormant on the forest floor, the opportunity to get at all that pesky «carbon»?

Bird lovers would do well to take responsibility for the HUMAN contribution to the problem, and invest generously in conservation, rather than blame cats, who are, in general, NOT the creatures who are cutting down forests and destroying wetlands.

We are cutting into the world's biodiversity by cutting down forests, expanding agriculture, overfishing the world's oceans, and expanding human habitats.

BPL: No, environmentalists are saying, «Switch to renewables instead of fossil fuels, and stop cutting down forests.»

I say, «No.Because the rate of carbon release is so rapid and because we are cutting down forests and clearing fields so rapidly, which are contributing to the imbalance by removing the organisms that take up carbon.»

There were a number of fun achievements to be unlocked as well such as cutting down forests, reaching new heights or finding the hidden special items.

It's a necessity for building homes, cutting down forests, harvesting crops, pulling out stumps, and plowing snow.

Human decisions have introduced additional perturbations to the carbon cycle, in the form of fossil - fuel burning, cutting down forests, and land use changes, just to name a few.

After six years of running such simulations, the verdict is in: Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations as a result of burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests increased the risks of flooding in two out of three model runs by more than 90 percent.

Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause — rising levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from fossil fuel burning, cutting down forests and other human activities.

Cutting down forests also exposes people to mosquitoes that would otherwise remain hidden.

For example, ancient Greeks and 19th - century Americans debated how cutting down forests might bring more rainfall to a region, or perhaps less.

But the means her family had employed over the centuries to achieve a «natural» effect at their house included cutting down forests to create open vistas, introducing water holes, and otherwise turning the grounds into a savanna.

The land is made available by cutting down forests and burning the trees, and in many cases only one crop is obtained from the land.

They believe that it's madness to continue cutting down forests when there's plenty of wood waiting to be reclaimed.

The first is climate change, exacerbated by the greenhouse gases we encourage by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, and farming the way we do (particularly for meat production).

If a country cuts down its forests or exhausts its supplies of petroleum, this adds to GNP, but nothing is subtracted.

Also, Japan employed considerable numbers of Philippinos and Indonesians to cut down the forests and ship out the logs.

Similarly, when we cut down our forests, that adds to personal consumption.

Despite this battle it hasn't stopped the Argentinean government selling off large areas of the nature reserve on which they live, to private companies who've started cutting down the forest for farmland.

We know that when we cut down forests, when we deforest various places that is a release of CO2 into the atmosphere from the decay of the twigs; or if the forests are burnt for farmland that's a release of CO2, but on the other hand places near where you and I are talking in the New York State, in Massachusetts, Vermont those places where the forests are growing, and that's being a net carbon storage.

In this method, settlers cut down forests and burn the cover in order to grow crops in the nitrogen - and mineral - rich ash that is left behind.

Before cutting down forest, land managers in drought prone areas might first consider the birds in the trees.

«But in clay - like soil, you can cut down the forest and the nutrients remain trapped tightly in the muddy clay.»

There can be a long lag between cutting down a forest, say, and losing the species that lived there.

«Unfortunately, the amount of aid is so little and the pressures to cut down the forest for furniture markets, firewood and building materials for homes, or other uses are so great that the conservation and money and protected areas are not enough to counteract the overall loss of forest in many countries.»

But, in many tropical nations, it is more economical to cut down forests than protect them.

I'm sure some cities will try to cut down the forest around them, maybe even limit tree planting within city limits.

That team of older men is cutting down a forest full of older trees to replace them with new young ones that can flourish in the years to come.

Raise new cities, cut down forests, lay roads, build bridges and change the course of rivers.

An idiot with initiative, a sect fanatic, who cuts down a forest to see it?

To extract each barrel of oil from a surface mine, the industry must first cut down the forest, then remove an average of two tons of peat and dirt that lie above the oil sands layer, then two tons of the sand itself.

Of course, we can always cut down the forests again, and if we can find a way to do that without emitting any CO2, then we would have created a new sink.

At the Kyoto talks in 1997, for instance, various nations proposed that industrialized countries be allowed to offset some of their own emissions by paying poorer countries not to cut down their forests.

If he meant cutting down forest to create pasture, of course, that is a ridiculous proposal.

So when we burn coal or oil for energy or cut down forests and add even more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the planet warms up.