Sentences with phrase «draconian co2»

If Figueres and her UN cohorts have their way, a «carbon budget» will be foisted upon the entire planet, with draconian CO2 rationing to control all human activity.

With the draconian CO2 measures that literally will have no impact on global temperatures, why would any company stay in California.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that a CO2 concentration in the range 500 to 900 ppm might produce a temperature rise of at least 2 °C from the late 19th century that could be problematic for humankind; (7) The potential negative impact on humanity has been exaggerated; (8) The only alternative to rising greenhouse gas concentrations is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions — whether this averts a «pending disaster» is not well understood; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 probably resulting in some warming; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are neither technically feasible nor economically affordable, and would necessitate inadequate energy supply to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing, leading to worldwide depression.

«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.

He instead will allow the EPA to aggressively pursue the draconian CO2 policies to the detriment of the U.S. and its citizens.

From MIT, a possible solution to allow coal fired power plants to meet the new draconian CO2 emission requirements imposed by the EPA.

in the meantime, in the absence of reliable climate models or any certainty of «how much climate may change,» how many trillions should we spend and how far backward must modern industrial civilization be propelled by imposing draconian co2 emissions cuts?

Not exact matches

instead, humanity faces the completely outlandish and draconian attempt by uncompromising zealots to return civilization to the stone age in order to appease a co2 totem that will tolerate nothing less than total carbon abstinence.

Now, although the draconian laws passed in 2037 have cut CO2 emissions in half, the US is in a state of near collapse.

Furthermore, actually reducing CO2 levels will require much more draconian solutions.

«We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which assumes zero effects from changing levels of CO2 after the year 2000 ″

You've altered this to «We have considered cases ranging from business as usual, which is scenario A, to draconian emission cuts, scenario C, which assumes zero effects from CO2 after the year 2000

«EU to Ban Cars from Cities by 2050 --» Cars will be banned from London and all other cities across Europe under a draconian EU master plan to cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 40 years.»»

Of course, as we are imminently aware, the stuck - on - stupid Democrat Party gave us Obamacare, and they still are pushing draconian regulations on American businesses and consumers to battle the evil CO2 - unicorn.

Remember, the Warmist argument that underpins their stance, and the reason they feel justified in proposing draconian measures to reduce CO2 output, is that the influence of CO2 over-rides all other factors in atmospheric thermodynamics.

The more relevant issues concern whether whatever warming that has occurred can be substantially, or entirely attributed to human CO2 emissions, and whether we are really in danger of burning up, if we don't take draconian measures to stop it.

«It is undeniably true that global temperature increases have been far, far less than doomsday computer models predicted — about three times smaller, and there are good reasons to suspect the increases from further human CO2 emissions would be smaller still, without imposing draconian regulations.

What you fail to account for is the cost of draconian cuts in CO2.

This is at the heart of problems with AGW theory — There is no evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 is anywhere near large enough to justify the scary scenarios spun by AGW supporters nor to justify the draconian abatement policies they advocate.