Sentences with phrase «do about greenhouse gas emissions»

The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago.

Not exact matches

In particular, dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is about to «become as professionalized an industry as IT did in the»80s,» predicts DeSafey.

In fact, even if the world does cool over the next few years as some predict, it in no way undermines the certainty about long - term warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

Concerns about greenhouse gas emissions simply do not have a high priority now in developing nations.

«Climate models can easily make assumptions about reductions in future greenhouse gas emissions and project the implications, but they do this with no rational basis for human responses,» Gross said.

Do not worry about the economic impacts of putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

I understand the logic of starting with the countries with the biggest emissions of greenhouse gases and most capacity to do something about energy choices.

They only think about their own business, they do not care that US's greenhouse gas emission is affecting world poor areas.

Clearly, opposition to doing something about climate change has fallen back to a new position: claims that attempting to limit greenhouse gas emissions would be incredibly costly.

While I am still comfortable with my argument that «human inertia» is the prime explanation for a long response time for doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions, I am very wary of efforts by California and the U.K. to stick their necks out on carbon reductions.

After hearing the speeches, and knowing what you do about the trajectory of emissions here and overseas, what's your personal sense of the likelihood the world will see a price on greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to shift choices in energy sources or technologies?

I can count myself as one of those after my article about the greenhouse gas emissions from producing and transporting one bottle of Fiji water all the way from the South Pacific to the US (do a Google search for «Fiji water» and my article is still one of the top links to appear).

While we're very pleased and supportive of the building code... it really is zero net electricity, not net zero energy, because it doesn't take into account gas use in homes and buildings, and gas use makes up about 40 percent of a home's greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bush administration made clear today that it doesn't intend to do anything about climate change in the final six months in office, announcing that instead of responding to the Supreme Court's mandate last year that the EPA determine the dangers posed to humankind by greenhouse - gas emissions they would simply request further public comment.

And though, eventually, this drought will end, unless something is done about worldwide human greenhouse gas emissions, these kinds of extreme events will continue to recur and worsen.

But they do not disagree about the underlying chemistry and physics of their enterprise — all of which show that people are warming the planet through their industrial greenhouse - gas emissions.

Maybe you don't know much about the sum of radiative forcings, or findings from paleoclimate, that allow climatologists to calculate that human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for 100 + % of recent warming, but that doesn't mean nobody does.

Australia and the USA are culpable on two counts, they are producing more greenhouse gasses than any other nations (considering population sizes) and they are doing less about controlling their emissions than any of the other major greenhouse gas emitting nations.

Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.

I have absolutely no doubt that at the current rate of [greenhouse gas emissions] we can cross a tipping point, and when that occurs it's too late to do anything about it.»

«While we're very pleased and supportive of the building code... it really is zero net electricity, not net zero energy, because it doesn't take into account gas use in homes and buildings, and gas use makes up about 40 percent of a home's greenhouse gas emissions,» she said.

There's plenty of discussion about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, but are we ready to actually do something substantive about reducing those emissions?

In this era of global warming, it is inoperative, because the whole point of controlling greenhouse - gas emissions is to do something about the weather.

Early in 2018, it announced it was about to stop producing more than 500 car models that do not meet its air quality standards, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Does section 202 of the Clean Air Act, the provision through which EPA is promulgating motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards, say anything about fuel economy?

Assuming that Congress continues to do nothing on climate, that $ 655 billion floor for regulatory justification (and the totally unknown ceiling) will prove significant when at some point a hypothetical second Clinton Administration — which promises to be serious about climate in a way that the Obama Administration apparently has not been — resorts to Section 115 of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The solutions don't just involve talking about water management, but also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

How do you feel about the idea of burying carbon dioxide underground near you, to cut emissions of the greenhouse gas from power plants and other industrial facilities?

But does the increased knowledge about the environment resulting from the conference outweigh these greenhouse gas emissions?

And although he has to deal with internal squabbles about whether cap and trade or a carbon tax is the best way to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, at least the Obama team does agree on the goal.

If they could only do something about their greenhouse gas emissions, those vile bird - killing tailing ponds, and the

If you listen to climate scientists — and despite the relentless campaign to discredit their work, you should — it is long past time to do something about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The Cost of Action Just as there is a rough consensus among climate modelers about the likely trajectory of temperatures if we do not act to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases, there is a rough consensus among economic modelers about the costs of action.

Although it does not recommend or justify any particular stabilization target, it does provide important scientific insights about the relationships among emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations, temperatures, and impacts.

Lomborg is also right to note that even if we're worried about worsening hurricanes due to global warming, it doesn't necessarily follow that our most immediate policy solution should simply be to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Science News fills us in: Capturing Carbon Does Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Though a coal power plant equipped to sequester carbon requires about 30 % more coal to provide the power to compress the captured CO2 and pump it underground, the overall carbon emissions still are reduced by 71 - 78 % compared with an average coal plant for every usable unit of electricity Emissions Though a coal power plant equipped to sequester carbon requires about 30 % more coal to provide the power to compress the captured CO2 and pump it underground, the overall carbon emissions still are reduced by 71 - 78 % compared with an average coal plant for every usable unit of electricity emissions still are reduced by 71 - 78 % compared with an average coal plant for every usable unit of electricity produced.

The report assesses many technologies that could be used to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but does not make recommendations about which should be used.