Sentences with phrase «emission mitigation technologies»
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.
http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/ Not exact matches
The targets for lower emissions of carbon dioxide from Europe's basic industries are out of reach, without urgent introduction of innovative carbon dioxide mitigation technologies.
He now hopes that he and his colleagues» research will lead to politicians in both Sweden and Europe taking the decision to pave the way for CCS and other mitigation technologies, which could seriously reduce emissions from energy - intensive industry.
Partnerships are built around various drivers: for example supporting the Polar regions in a period of rapid change; educating the public about polar sciences and climate; contributing to climate change awareness; mitigation and adaptation; defining and implementing CSR action plan; implementing technology solutions for low carbon emissions.
If the emphasis on equity and risk aversion embodied in the Paris Agreement are to have traction, negative - emission technologies should not form the basis of the mitigation agenda.
Global Warming The experts considered four solutions in this area: investing only in mitigation of greenhouse - gas emissions; investing in mitigation and research and development into low ‐ carbon energy technology; investing only in research and development into low ‐ carbon energy technology; investing in a combination of mitigation, research and development and adaptation.
The agency chose these actions because it said they all meet these criteria: They can result in significant near - term emissions reductions, do not curb economic growth, rely only on existing technologies and proven policies and produce significant benefits beyond climate change mitigation.
At the same time, the developing major economies will pursue, in the context of sustainable development, nationally appropriate mitigation actions, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity - building, with a view to achieving a deviation from business as usual emissions.
But the EU, US, Japan and other developed countries insist that INDCs were always envisaged to focus on mitigation (ie cutting emissions) and that other issues such as adaptation, finance and technology transfer should be covered separately in any agreement.
In other words, the study does a simple physical analysis of the trade off between conventional mitigation and negative emissions technologies in a 2C world and makes no assumptions about changing economic, technological and sociopolitical contexts, the authors note.
As a result, it is increasingly imperative that we also develop negative emissions technologies as part of our broader climate mitigation strategy.
And the «purchase» of additional mitigation potential from developing countries is precisely the sort of measurable, reportable, and verifiable transfers of finance and technology that will be needed to drive such investment, and thus a rapid deviation from baseline emissions growth in the developing world.
For example, simulations with GCAM can reach 4.5 Wm − 2 even if some technology options, such as CCS or nuclear power, are removed from consideration or even if not all countries enter into an emissions mitigation agreement at the same time (Clarke et al. 2009).
It holds that countries that historically caused the recent atmospheric carbon dioxide build - up must lead in cutting their emissions, while helping developing countries eventually do likewise, by pouring trillions of dollars in cash and free technology into the Green Climate Fund for supposed climate change adaptation, mitigation and compensation.
In the light of the entry into force of the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2016, the CSI initiated an in - depth review of the 2009 technology papers and delivered in June 2017 a compilation of 52 individual papers on well - known existing technologies (for which the latest development and implementation status is reviewed) and seven additional summary papers describing state - of - the - art and anticipated technological developments that can further enhance mitigation of CO2 emissions in cement production.
One Planet Living principle Masdar Target ZERO CARBON 100 per cent of energy supplied by renewable energy — Photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, waste to energy and other technologies ZERO WASTE 99 per cent diversion of waste from landfill (includes waste reduction measures, re-use of waste wherever possible, recycling, composting, waste to energy) SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT Zero carbon emissions from transport within the city; implementation of measures to reduce the carbon cost of journeys to the city boundaries (through facilitating and encouraging the use of public transport, vehicle sharing, supporting low emissions vehicle initiatives) SUSTAINABLE MATERIALS Specifying high recycled materials content within building products; tracking and encouraging the reduction of embodied energy within material sand throughout the construction process; specifying the use of sustainable materials such as Forest Stewardship Council certified timber, bamboo and other products SUSTAINABLE FOOD Retail outlets to meet targets for supplying organic food and sustainable and or fair trade products SUSTAINABLE WATER Per capita water consumption to be at least 50 per cent less than the national average; all waste water to be re-used HABITATS AND WILDLIFE All valuable species to be conserved or relocated with positive mitigation targets CULTURE AND HERITAGE Architecture to integrate local values.
Given the right approach, remediation could well be cheaper and simpler than mitigation, could certainly wait for appropriate technology to mature, and also has the benefit that it addresses the risk that fossil emissions aren't the reason, or at least the only reason, for the rise in pCO2.
(B) assessing, developing, and implementing technology and policy options for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and avoidance of future emissions, including sector and cross-sector mitigation strategies; and
Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a greenhouse gas mitigation technology which produces negative carbon dioxide emissions by combining biomass use with geologic carbon capture and storage.
It discusses the driving forces for GHG emissions and mitigation in the short and medium terms and emphasizes the role of technology relative to social, economic and institutional inertia.
It acknowledges that any plausible path toward climate mitigation will involve a lot of nuclear energy, carbon capture and natural gas, pushing back against the delusional claims of the mainstream environmental movement that deep reductions in emissions can be accomplished with present - day wind, solar and energy - efficiency technologies alone.
Roehrl, R.A., and K. Riahi, Greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and the role of technology dynamics and path dependency - a cost assessment.
The conference took place in Brussels and covered three main themes: the opening session «Coal and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions», followed by a panel discussion on «Creating new pathways to drive deployment of technologies to reduce GHG emissions» and finally the afternoon technology session focusing on «Coal in the global energy mix — pathways to reducing GHG emissions».
Included in this set of studies are the following: Carolyn Fischer (Resources for the Future) and Richard Newell (U.S. Energy Information Administration, on leave from Duke University), «Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation»; Stephen Schneider (late of Stanford University) and Lawrence Goulder (Stanford University), «Achieving Low - Cost Emissions Targets»; and Daren Acemoglu (MIT), Philippe Aghion, Leonardo Bursztyn, and David Hemous (Harvard University), «The Environment and Directed Technical Change.»
Under the Cancun agreements developing countries agreed to take «Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), supported by technology and finance, «aimed at achieving a deviation in emissions relative to «business as usual» emissions in 2020.
It was also agreed that developing country Parties take nationally appropriate mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development that would be supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity building with the aim of achieving a deviation in emissions relative to «business as usual» emissions in 2020.
«The more ambitious early mitigation is, the less the world will have to rely on socially contested negative emissions technologies and high - cost emission reduction op ons in the future.»
That means that high efficiency low emissions (HELE) coal technology and carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) must be recognised as essential mitigation technologies.»
In addition to providing mitigation of GHG emissions, improved public health, and environmental benefits, solid waste and wastewater technologies confer significant co-benefits for adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development (Table 10.7; see also Section 12.3.4).
The shift from binding and long term emissions targets to voluntary Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) made inevitable the second historic shift in international climate mitigation efforts, which is the formal and explicit recognition that we do not, in fact, have all the technology we need to achieve deep reductions in emissions.
Roehrl, R.A., and K. Riahi, 2000: Technology dynamics and greenhouse gas emissions mitigation - a cost assessment.
In this regard, carbon removal approaches share a common purpose with conventional climate mitigation technologies, which also seek to reduce human influence on the climate system (by reducing future anthropogenic GHG emissions).
As a result, without effective mitigation, total energy - related carbon dioxide emissions (including transformations, own use and losses) will rise from 26.1 GtCO2 (7.2 GtC) in 2004 to around 37 — 40 GtCO2 (11.1 GtC) in 2030 (IEA, 2006b; Price and de la Rue du Can, 2006), possibly even higher (Fisher, 2006), assuming modest energy - efficiency improvements are made to technologies currently in use.
According to the IPCC's fifth assessment report, many CDR technologies are a subset of mitigation, as mitigation involves both emissions reductions and enhancing sinks, the latter of which is the aim of many CDRs (the term «enhanced weathering» makes this very apparent).
Developing countries want mitigation of GHG emissions, adaptation to climate change effects, finance, technology and capacity building all included in a country's INDC.
Rather, mitigation scenarios represent major transformations of the economy relative to baseline scenarios and, thus, represent large and highly non-linear changes that will strongly impact the development of new energy technologies on both the supply and demand sides, as well as other relevant technologies that offset greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
A new article lays the groundwork for alternative climate mitigation scenarios that place less reliance on unproven negative emissions technologies in the future.
It is a key part of the climate change mitigation toolbox because it can tackle emissions sources for which no other technologies are out of the lab and commercially available.
IMHO if the technology can be used safely, economically and effectively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions then those promoting the technology should be able to make their case in comparison to other mitigation strategies, but people whose main bag is promoting nuclear above everything else (including excepting the AGW theory) strike me as high suspect.
committed low levels of government expenditure on research and development in key areas like energy supply, juxtaposed with the rising importance of low - emissions energy technologies for Australia's mitigation effort, suggest that current funding levels do not reflect the priority required to meet the rapidly changing pattern of demand established by an emissions trading scheme.