Sentences with phrase «doing total emissions»

We are doing total emissions, not per capita emissions.

Not exact matches

They do not emit tailpipe pollutants, giving a large reduction of local air pollution, and, can give a significant reduction in total greenhouse gas and other emissions (dependent on the method used for electricity generation).

Although natural gas generates less greenhouse gas than coal when burned, when its total life - cycle emissions associated with extraction and distribution are factored in, it does not seem much cleaner than coal

«We didn't really know how our first experiment would turn out, but we were surprised how little difference abundant gas made to total greenhouse gas emissions even though it was dramatically changing the global energy system,» said James «Jae» Edmonds, PNNL's chief scientist at JGCRI.

Since non-domestic buildings are responsible for about 20 per cent of total UK CO2 emissions, according to leading authority on the built environment BRE, it's good PR to be seen to be doing something to improve that statistic.

Because California mandates require automakers of a certain size to sell a minimum number of zero - emission vehicles in the state — and no, hybrids, plug - in hybrids, and other partial - zero - emission vehicles (PZEVs) don't count towards that total.

Continue to kick the can down the road, and allow our status of «the nation most responsible for total GHG emissions yet still doing nothing» to provide cover for India, China, Brazil, and the rest of the developing world.

If we do that we'll reduce total world emissions through natural market forces, whatever we end up doing in our own country.

It doesn't really matter if relative current values are low relative to total global emissions if they are rising exponentially, especially if they are doubling in fewer than ten or so years.

The thing though with these low - sulfur fuels, the study also found, is that while they do reduce total particle emissions, the particles that do remain tend to remain in the air longer... Which is where they post a threat to human health and affect climate.

At that point, in about 1,000 years, ~ 20 % of our total emissions would remain in the atmosphere, although that ~ 20 % figure for the remnant does creep up as the quantity of CO2 we release gets bigger.

You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand his very clear explanation of what he means by it --(a) large enough positive feedback (s) that it (or they) exceeds the total amount of CO2 equivalent of all human ghg emissions.

Total CO2 emissions in the US have steadily increased ever since we began measuring them — and all the current administration is willing to do is say their should be voluntary programs to reduce CO2 per dollar of GDP (not per capita, not total emissiTotal CO2 emissions in the US have steadily increased ever since we began measuring them — and all the current administration is willing to do is say their should be voluntary programs to reduce CO2 per dollar of GDP (not per capita, not total emissitotal emissions).

Regardless of how well renewables are or are not doing, the point Rob and I are trying to make is that fossil infrastructure is still expanding in a big way: the total committed emissions represented by power plants is growing even faster than annual emissions.

Do you mean the total emission from this layer or total emission of those spectrum (flux + emissivity)?

The total water flow doesn't change, and neither does the total IR emission from Earth.

So regardless of the 3 % of total emissions that humanity creates, it is very likely that a large portion of it doesn't even make it to the atmosphere.

In this capacity, nations could make choices about how to allocate emissions within their country so that total emissions within the country do not exceed their fair share of safe global emissions.

Total CO2 emissions of all industrialised countries that have quantitative greenhouse gas mitigation targets under the Kyoto Protocol increased in 2010 by 3.5 % (including the USA that did not ratify the protocol).

The category «National Total» does not include emissions resulting from fuel sold for use in ships or aircrafts engaged in international transport (international bunker fuel emissions).

Lisbon conference, discussions of scientific method, other reasons for limiting emissions and so on, its all total waste of time, its nothing to do with the key issue.

One thing that I find quite annoying in this discussion is the claim that because we don't know the total mass of carbon in any particular part of the carbon cycle, we can not see the effect of our emissions.

CO2 emissions from power generation in 2016 were near 30 - year lows, in large part due to greater use of natural gas.3 And increased use of natural gas in the power generation sector has helped to reduce total CO2 emissions to their lowest level in nearly 25 years.4 This proves that Americans do not have to make the false choice between utilizing our nation's energy resources and protecting the environment.

Your political views have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical facts of increasing CO2 due to our emissions, the warming that will cause (~ 1.1 C / doubling), the feedbacks that will occur (to a total of about 3C / doubling), crop movements, sea level rise, ocean acidification, precipitation changes, etc..

Allan Siddons is completely wrong in his approach: the sink rate doesn't depend on the emissions in one year of about 4 ppmv, but of the total increase over the years, which nowadays is over 30 % (100 ppmv) higher than expected from the current temperature.

So China built many hundreds of coal plants in the last 15 years, and they lead the world in fossil fuel burned and CO2 emissions (accounting for 30 % of total world emissions), but this does not mean that the increase in capacity in China even correlates with fossil fuel burned?

Does your model fit not only Mauna Loa but Law Dome as well using as input only total annual emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel, cement production and land use changes?

Do the fit yourself, all you need are the total levels of atmospheric carbon (about 750 Gt in 2006) and the human emissions since 1750 and fit the line shape of Keelings curves using as many boxes as you want.

As the solar activity (total solar irradiance) increased, so did global temperatures [the HADCRU global warming from 1850 to 2000 is.55 C] and the warming commenced well before the tremndous increase of CO2 emissions after World War II.

If you are benchmarking the two policies for a comparable carbon price, total emissions would be higher under my system, and so the total value of emissions rights which are nominally granted to firms would be higher, likely by a factor of 1.5 - 2 based on work I just read by Rivers and Jaccard, although I don't have specific modeling numbers.

We also find that, for large cumulative totals in particular, cumulative metrics based on integrations over smaller time periods, such as 2010 — 2050, do not correlate with peak warming as well as cumulative emissions to a given date near the time of peak warming.

Instead, you tried to defend the obvious contradiction of combining backradiation with total transparency, arguing that you can get emission from substances that don't absorb.

I did a modeling exercise a few years ago by tabulating different forcings — CO2 concentrations, sulfur emissions, total solar irradiance and the PDO and AMO — giving each a weighting and playing with the weightings until I got a best fit to the 20th century global temperature record.

As I think icecore data does itself, 27 % of the CO2 increase in law dome CO2 concentration happens before CO2 emission become significant in the 40s, when 18 % of total industrial era emissions happened.

While JCM remains a small proportion of Japan's total emission reduction efforts, JCM does help Japan achieve other objectives.

The Earth has already warmed 0.8 °C since pre-industrial times and another 0.4 or 0.5 °C is locked in due to past emissions, making a total of 1.2 or 1.3 °C of warming we can do nothing about.

For this reason, current levels of total global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced significantly to avoid future harms especially to those who have done little to cause the existing problem.

These figures do not take into account the recent long - term energy strategy of the European Union (EU), which proposes that by 2020, EU consumption of renewables will increase to 20 percent of total energy use; the proportion of biofuels used in transport will increase to 10 percent; and EU greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to 20 percent below 1990 levels (European Union, 2007).

Concentration numbers are pretty accurate, but we really do not know what percentage of the total is from human emissions.

Just a short list: — you go on and on about SMB causing a net reduction of sea level in Antarctica (and sometimes Greenland), completely ignoring that SMB is not the total ice mass balance — you routinely mentioned that human emissions aren't increasing the CO2 concentration because those emissions didn't increase for several years in a row, but concentration did.

Do we compensate electricity suppliers if, rather than reducing the total emissions target, we increase the number of indusries that need to obtain permits?

u Due to gaps in quantitative information (see the text) the column sums in this table do not represent total industry emissions or mitigation potential.

If we ever change or collective mind and want to reduce emission totals beyond the pre-determined target range to be reached periodically, how much does the government need to pay the polluters?

«If climate change continues to happen at the rate it is, it will impact our business model and will impact what we can insure going forwards, so there is total consistency between our core business and what we do in terms of offsetting our own emissions»

There are more emissions from the total Corn Ethanol production sequence and use as an alternative and additive to fossil fuels than if ordinary fossil originated fuels were just used to do the job.

Especially when the program doesn't actually cut emissions, it merely provides a mechanism whereby companies can continue with their current emissions without increasing total emissions by buying credits.

While lowering CO2 emissions is talked about in various circles, the fact is the United States already is doing it, thanks largely to natural gas — 60 percent of the U.S. total produced with advanced hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

And when all is said and done we do not even know how human CO2 emissions contribute to the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

6 December, 2007 Dear Power Consumer: While we all want our governments to do something about carbon emissions and planetary warming, many of us believe that it is important to consider the total impact of any project that claims to benefit our society.

To put this target into context, this means that over the next ten years, emissions must increase less in total than they did in just one year between 2009 and 2010.