Sentences with phrase «decarbonizing economies»

We can only rise up to the climate change challenge by changing our patterns of production and consumption, decarbonizing our economies, stopping dirty energy projects, and adopting fair and ambitious drastic domestic emission cuts in the industry sector.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world — especially China, India, and the European Union — are moving rapidly toward decarbonizing their economies with 21st - century technologies.

Yet some critics have declared that the so - called 2 ° C target is impossible, saying we can not deploy the technologies needed to decarbonize the economy in time.

Given the continuous commitment of most countries to reduce emissions, and the firm leadership of Europe, China and Russia in shaping the transformation towards a decarbonized economy, the United States runs the risk of being left behind and missing one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time.

We are not just talking about how fast humans decarbonize the economy (or whether we do this at all!).

They are milestones in a process by which countries decarbonize their economies in ways that align with national interests.

To mitigate the worst effects of climate change we are required to decarbonize our economies while meeting the demands of global development.

The key problem with this «moral hazard» argument is the hypothesis that «cost - effective, proven, scaleable CDR solutions» are poised to proliferate at greater rates than GHG emission mitigation technologies (such as renewable energy and energy efficiency) that are required to decarbonize our economy.

The key to decarbonizing our economy is to build a new energy system that does not rely on carbon - based fuels.

In a combination of sarcasm and anger they pointed out that it was a great target but it meant decarbonizing our economy and our societies now, immediately.

One of the few countries that has ever managed to decarbonize its economy that fast without suffering a crushing recession was France, when it spent billions to scale up its nuclear program between 1980 and 1985.

In any case, even in a realistic best case scenario, we're not doing enough to decarbonize the economy if we want to avoid dangerous and potentially catastrophic global warming.

managed to decarbonize its economy that fast without suffering a crushing recession was France, when it spent billions to scale up its nuclear program

Of course conservatives are skeptical of all claims coming from a tribe that has expressly stated its goal is to decarbonize the economy.

CDR helps enable a cost - effective transition to a decarbonized economy: Today, environmental advocates claim that prolonged use of fossil fuels is mutually exclusive with preventing climate change, and fossil fuel advocates bash renewables as not ready for «prime time» — i.e. unable to deliver the economic / development benefits of inexpensive fossil energy.

We learned Australia must set emissions caps that rapidly reduce toward zero to decarbonize the economy as fast as possible, enforced in a way that does not limit ambition.

Contribution to the long - term structural change required to decarbonize the economy should be prioritized over apparent short - term cost - effectiveness.

Think of it this way: even if emissions from industrialized countries were suddenly and magically halted, the dramatic emissions reductions demanded by the climate crisis would still require developing countries to urgently decarbonize their economies, and to do while major fractions of their populations are still mired in poverty.

It recognizes the need to decarbonize the economy and move towards renewables, «but some of the specific policies aren't specific enough,» she said.

But the deniers will take any broad goal like «we must decarbonize the economy fast enough to stay under 450 ppm» and call it a specific policy and claim that the scientist has no special authority.

You can't decarbonize the economy because congress refuses to ignore the will of the American people?

Nations should be competing to decarbonize their economies as a means to maximize economic growth.

It clearly believes that virtually everything in our society is tremendously dependent the surface temperature, and, because of that, we are headed towards certain and inescapable destruction, unless we take its advice and decarbonize our economy, pronto.

«Coral reefs face a dire situation regardless of how intensively society decarbonizes the economy,» noted researcher Peter Cox.

Of course, all the climate pledges so far have done absolutely nothing to decarbonize the economy, so why would anyone expect different from Paris is a mystery.

It is easy to see how within a few short years every listed company on the planet will face calls from shareholders to explain how they plan to adjust to a decarbonizing economy and escalating climate risks.

These advanced energy technology efforts may create a new decarbonized economy growth engine for jobs for decades, and technologies that can be marketed abroad to developing nations that are energy and carbon intensive.

His brash style may not be to everyone's taste; some of his goals (hyperloops, Mars missions and the like) might prove overly ambitious; the whole endeavor could yet falter, but the sweeping vision contained in Tesla's master plan has to be the benchmark for any and all businesses seeking to prosper in a decarbonizing economy.

That's hard to reconcile with the implicit claim underneath «guess what happened after Kyoto» and the argument behind «the US has decarbonized its economy, since 2000, faster than Europe.»

Willard obviously doesn't get that the US decarbonized its economy faster than Europe... without being in Kyoto, and without a national renewable mandate, and without cap and trade, and without a carbon tax... by the way, the US also decarbonized faster than Germany, and the world as a whole decarbonized faster before Kyoto was signed than after.

For the sake of discussion, I am happy to accept that 0.5 could be the ratio of emissions from a natural gas plant relative to those from a coal plant, and that something close to infinity could be the ratio of emissions from a natural gas plant relative to those from an intrinsically carbon - emission free technology (wind, solar, nuclear) constructed in a decarbonized economy of the future.

We need a broad consensus, maintained over decades, to decarbonize the economy.

Since Paris, a growing number of major companies around the world have been showing a real commitment to playing their part in decarbonizing the economy.

Several major economies, including Canada, Germany and Mexico, have also developed long - term plans to decarbonize their economies.

We have good reasons to decarbonize our economy even if that weren't the case.

Thus, if we must drive carbon emissions towards zero as quickly as possible, there is only one core climate lever that can get the job done: we must decarbonize the economy as quickly as possible.

This is quite possible but it doesn't come for free: We need to decarbonize our economy by converting to alternative sources of energy, and this clearly involves an economic cost (in addition to the new job opportunities that come with conversion to a new economy).

The study found that five nations decarbonized their economies at rates double the global historic average.

As such, the Breakthrough analysis reached a conclusion that was, at least at the time, surprising: state - led efforts to deploy nuclear power plants are the only proven way for governments to deliberately and rapidly decarbonize economies.

they are clearly failing to decarbonize their economies, and in the process they are causing enormous waste.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that if we decarbonize the economy by 2050, we have a good chance of limiting global warming to 2C, or even 1.5 C.

«Electricity is the lynchpin in our efforts to decarbonize the economy,» Jenkins said in his presentation at the Kleinman Center on February 1.

If we are to decarbonize the economy, immense new loads — transportation, home heating, industrial process heat — must be shifted to low - carbon grid power.

We need to eventually get CO2 emissions down to zero, but in the meantime it's the exponential growth that's our main enemy, since that boxes us in and leaves little time for decarbonizing the economy.

It is going to be expensive for the rich countries to decarbonize their economies and equally expensive for the poor to develop their economies with low - carbon energy.

This leads to a pesky problem — we could decarbonize our economy entirely, and we still could face the consequences of climate change caused by pollution from decades past.

In terms of analyzing data, if I recall correctly, Roger Pielke jr once discussed what countries had been able to decarbonize their economies faster than the global average over the last 35 years or so.

CCS projects like Petra Nova can enable a cost - effective, fast, and fair transition to a decarbonized economy, but NOT to an indefinite future of expanding «clean coal» power generation.

'' [P] rogressively decarbonizing the economy and adopting an approach of building more resiliency to climate events would be good steps in the right direction»

He mentioned that only the UK, Ireland, France, Sweden and Belgium had been able to decarbonize their economies faster than the global average since the 1970s or so.