Sentences with phrase «emissions from fossil fuels only»

IF carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels only stayed in the atmosphere a few years, say five years, then there may not be quite the urgency currently associated with anthropogenic global warming.

Not exact matches

While Peabody was only down about 10 % at the end of May 2014, the stock got crushed as the government proposed to reduce carbon emissions (stemming from fossil fuels like coal), which would burn up even more of Peabody's bottom line.

Other similar billion - ton savings in emissions (what Princeton University professors Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow have dubbed «stabilization wedges») are desperately needed and can come only from reduction in fossil - fuel consumption through energy efficiency, low - carbon technologies and changes in way of life.

He says the only answer may be immediate cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels, which would curb the amount of bleaching and limit acidification of oceans that results when they absorb carbon dioxide.

Peters co-authored a paper published last year warning that staking the future only on negative emissions technologies presents a «moral hazard» because they're unproven, there is a substantial risk that the technology can't be scaled up, and it may allow policymakers to think that weaning humanity away from fossil fuels is not urgent.

Our ensemble fire weather season length metric captured important wildfire events throughout Eurasia such as the Indonesian fires of 1997 — 98 where peat fires, following an El Niño - induced drought, released carbon equivalent to 13 — 40 % of the global fossil fuel emissions from only 1.4 % of the global vegetated land area (Fig. 4, 1997 — 1998) 46 and the heatwave over Western Russia in 2010 (Fig. 4, 2010) that led to its worst fire season in recorded history and triggered extreme air pollution in Moscow51.

In the other, they only taxed emissions from industry and fossil fuels.

That's because if tropical deforestation stopped, not only would those emissions go away, but on top of that, forests would start stowing away a significant part of the carbon from our fossil fuel emissions.

Given the rapid rise in recent decades, the answer seems to be «pretty large,» but emissions from the burning of fossil fuels may only be part of the human contribution.

There are sufficient fossil fuel resources to readily supply 1000 GtC, as fossil fuel emissions to date (370 GtC) are only a small fraction of potential emissions from known reserves and potentially recoverable resources (Fig. 2).

The talk of CO2 emissions plateauing over the last few years concerns only the emissions resulting from fossil - fuel use.

In addition, in Table 1 of the referenced source, only about 50 % of the estimated emissions from fossil fuels over the nearly 200 year period from 1800 to 1994 (given in petragrams Pg) is taken up by the oceans, disregarding estimated and highly uncertain source emissions from land use.

Because in the real world, the only way to offset fossil fuel CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is to remove an equivalent amount from the atmosphere and bury it.

To use your car's carbon footprint as an example: the first method would take into account all carbon emissions required to build the car (including all the metal, plastic, glass and other materials), drive the car and dispose of the car; the second would account only for the fossil fuels that resulted from building, driving and disposing of it.

Furthermore, emissions estimates discussed here include only those from fossil fuels burned within a country's borders, meaning that the tallies do not account for international trade.

Poor countries say industrial powers, which have spent a century or more benefiting from fossil fuels while adding billions of tons of heat - trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, owe them both financial assistance in dealing with rising seas or shifting rains and a stable climate, which they say can be achieved only if rich countries commit to deep prompt cuts in their emissions.

Indeed, out of the three prime drivers, the only one that has seen major changes in the past few decades is the chemistry of the atmosphere, as a consequence of the emissions from burning fossil fuels.

As a matter of substance, you can not meet the climate challenge by focusing only on developed countries when developing countries already account for around 55 % of global emissions from fossil fuels and will account for 65 % by 2030.

Solar and wind are too diffuse and not reliable enough to power factories and cities, and thus can not lift people out of poverty nor reduce emissions from fossil fuel - powered electrical systems more than only modestly.

Unfortunately, the only proven routes up from poverty involve an expanded use of energy and, consequently, a seemingly inevitable increase in fossil fuel use and thus carbon emissions.

The only CO2 emissions we actually measure (and even that may be more inferred from energy consumption than actually measured) is our fossil fuel related emissions.

Domestic emissions are only one part of Australia's contribution to climate change, which also includes emissions from the burning of fossil fuel exports (which dwarf domestic emissions) and emissions from the manufacture of imported products.

Hansen calculates that keeping below one degree of warming will mean we only have 130 billion tons of carbon from fossil - fuel emissions to go.

Only in the past few decades have scientists begun the measurements necessary to establish a relationship between current carbon levels and temperatures, and the science conducted since then has consistently pointed in one direction: that rising greenhouse gas emissions, arising from our use of fossil fuels and our industries, lead to higher temperatures.

Wiki:» The data only considers carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacture, but not emissions from land use, land - use change and forestry.»

The nationwide market would initially cover only China's vast, state - dominated power generation sector, which produced almost half of the country's emissions from the burning of fossil fuels last year.

This wouldn't make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints.

have known for years: that drastic reductions in emissions from fossil fuel use are the only way to avert the climate crisis.

Both groups are broadly inclined away from conspiracy theories, with the exception being the only positive assent to the conspiracy theory that — «The claim that the climate is changing due to emissions from fossil fuels is a hoax perpetrated by corrupt scientists who wish to spend more taxpayer money on climate research».

These clean energy solutions can not only help ensure a reliable electricity supply, they also reduce global warming emissions from fossil fuels.

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?

And the absolute growth in fossil fuels (especially natural gas) is not only keeping pace, it's cancelled out any supposed net reduction in emissions from fossil fuel burning.

Global carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels did not grow in 2015 and are projected to rise only slightly in 2016, marking three years of almost no growth, according to researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Global Carbon Project.

But one side sees hope in the bears» adaptive abilities and the other (led by Amstrup) sees hope only from political action to reduce human - generated fossil fuel emissions.

About 1/2 of the methane emissions is preexisting, about 2 / 3rds is from «natural» sources including rice field and food animals (we can reduce this if we starve billions of people), and only about 19 % is due to fossil fuels.

Anyone familiar with the issue knows that the emissions from fossil fuel consumption contributes only 4 - 5 % of the total annual flux.

Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels not only pollute our air directly; they also drive climate change, which can indirectly affect the quality of our air.

I'm only saying this to note I know the anthropogenic aerosols from this period can't be directly compared to the emission rate per fossil fuel input as later in the 20th century.

There is only one incontrovertable fact about global; warming and that is that NCDC, GISS, HadCRUT, UAH MSU, and RSS MSU all show no global warming since 2002 in spite of the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels from 26.301 Gt in 2002 to 33.158 Gt in 2010.

«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.

Fossil Fuel is a generic term that isn't quite correct Natural Gasoline is a distilled derivative of oil but almost all ofit is manufactured from cracked and recombined oil derivativeswhile natural gasoline is further refined intoPropane, butane, Proproline (a plastics feed stock), and Natural gasand also separates out sulfur (for fertilizer and explosives) Gasoline can be made from coal («Coaline») or from organic matter («Bio-fuel») but uses a few of oil based feed stocks instead tomake «Sythiline» (artificial gasoline) This gasoline is actually cleaner burning then natural gas with allit's «flare offs» (butane, propane, propoline, sulfur) used in theearly 19th century because it is manufactured only with essentialHydrocarbons Diesel fuel is also becoming more and more Manufactured instead ofdistilled as demand for it rises but improvements in Hydro cleaningis allowing for diesel with no volatile chemicals like sulfur andmercury (taken out for petro - chemical feedstock to make fertilizerand thermometers) In both cases what you have is pure hydro - carbons, a carbon atomwith hydrogen atoms attached to it In the case of gasoline there is CH1, cH7, CH11 When in a combustion engine the gasoline is sprayed into the pistonafter being mixed with air and the drive of the engine compressesthe the chamber filled with the gasoline mist until it's full downstoke then the spark plug causes the Exothermic reaction... which isthe conversion of the potential energy in the gasoline mist to heatand force, with the force side of that equation shooting the pistonupward and the top of the stroke kicking what's left of thecaramelized gasoline mist out into the Emission control box If the Emulsion control box wasn't there to filter out the burntgasoline particles, any potential additives and volatile chemicalsthen the caramelized gunk hitting air would create CARBON MONOXIDEin the cooler then the heat of the engine difference CARBON MONOXIDE can also become a problem if the Emissions controlBox filter, air filters or muffler filters is worn or damaFuel is a generic term that isn't quite correct Natural Gasoline is a distilled derivative of oil but almost all ofit is manufactured from cracked and recombined oil derivativeswhile natural gasoline is further refined intoPropane, butane, Proproline (a plastics feed stock), and Natural gasand also separates out sulfur (for fertilizer and explosives) Gasoline can be made from coal («Coaline») or from organic matter («Bio-fuel») but uses a few of oil based feed stocks instead tomake «Sythiline» (artificial gasoline) This gasoline is actually cleaner burning then natural gas with allit's «flare offs» (butane, propane, propoline, sulfur) used in theearly 19th century because it is manufactured only with essentialHydrocarbons Diesel fuel is also becoming more and more Manufactured instead ofdistilled as demand for it rises but improvements in Hydro cleaningis allowing for diesel with no volatile chemicals like sulfur andmercury (taken out for petro - chemical feedstock to make fertilizerand thermometers) In both cases what you have is pure hydro - carbons, a carbon atomwith hydrogen atoms attached to it In the case of gasoline there is CH1, cH7, CH11 When in a combustion engine the gasoline is sprayed into the pistonafter being mixed with air and the drive of the engine compressesthe the chamber filled with the gasoline mist until it's full downstoke then the spark plug causes the Exothermic reaction... which isthe conversion of the potential energy in the gasoline mist to heatand force, with the force side of that equation shooting the pistonupward and the top of the stroke kicking what's left of thecaramelized gasoline mist out into the Emission control box If the Emulsion control box wasn't there to filter out the burntgasoline particles, any potential additives and volatile chemicalsthen the caramelized gunk hitting air would create CARBON MONOXIDEin the cooler then the heat of the engine difference CARBON MONOXIDE can also become a problem if the Emissions controlBox filter, air filters or muffler filters is worn or damafuel») but uses a few of oil based feed stocks instead tomake «Sythiline» (artificial gasoline) This gasoline is actually cleaner burning then natural gas with allit's «flare offs» (butane, propane, propoline, sulfur) used in theearly 19th century because it is manufactured only with essentialHydrocarbons Diesel fuel is also becoming more and more Manufactured instead ofdistilled as demand for it rises but improvements in Hydro cleaningis allowing for diesel with no volatile chemicals like sulfur andmercury (taken out for petro - chemical feedstock to make fertilizerand thermometers) In both cases what you have is pure hydro - carbons, a carbon atomwith hydrogen atoms attached to it In the case of gasoline there is CH1, cH7, CH11 When in a combustion engine the gasoline is sprayed into the pistonafter being mixed with air and the drive of the engine compressesthe the chamber filled with the gasoline mist until it's full downstoke then the spark plug causes the Exothermic reaction... which isthe conversion of the potential energy in the gasoline mist to heatand force, with the force side of that equation shooting the pistonupward and the top of the stroke kicking what's left of thecaramelized gasoline mist out into the Emission control box If the Emulsion control box wasn't there to filter out the burntgasoline particles, any potential additives and volatile chemicalsthen the caramelized gunk hitting air would create CARBON MONOXIDEin the cooler then the heat of the engine difference CARBON MONOXIDE can also become a problem if the Emissions controlBox filter, air filters or muffler filters is worn or damafuel is also becoming more and more Manufactured instead ofdistilled as demand for it rises but improvements in Hydro cleaningis allowing for diesel with no volatile chemicals like sulfur andmercury (taken out for petro - chemical feedstock to make fertilizerand thermometers) In both cases what you have is pure hydro - carbons, a carbon atomwith hydrogen atoms attached to it In the case of gasoline there is CH1, cH7, CH11 When in a combustion engine the gasoline is sprayed into the pistonafter being mixed with air and the drive of the engine compressesthe the chamber filled with the gasoline mist until it's full downstoke then the spark plug causes the Exothermic reaction... which isthe conversion of the potential energy in the gasoline mist to heatand force, with the force side of that equation shooting the pistonupward and the top of the stroke kicking what's left of thecaramelized gasoline mist out into the Emission control box If the Emulsion control box wasn't there to filter out the burntgasoline particles, any potential additives and volatile chemicalsthen the caramelized gunk hitting air would create CARBON MONOXIDEin the cooler then the heat of the engine difference CARBON MONOXIDE can also become a problem if the Emissions controlBox filter, air filters or muffler filters is worn or damaged.

The IPCC bar chart on emissions show only a + / -.25 % error on CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement.

Given historical climate and physics, the only way that implicit endorsement means «implicitly endors [ing] that humans are a cause of warming» where «a» is something less than primary (that is, over half) is if there is some as - yet undiscovered sink absorbing human CO2 emissions and, simultaneously, an as - yet undiscovered source of CO2 that is releasing it into the atmosphere - and moreover, the CO2 from this mysterious source just happens to possess a carbon isotope signature that matches fossil fuel CO2 as a total coincidence.

This accounts only for emissions from fossil - fuel combustion and does not take into account other sources of greenhouse gases.

It's only when deforestation and other land use changes made a net shift of carbon in the short term carbon cycle from plants back into the atmosphere, that humans began to make a net positive return of CO2 into the atmosphere (although deforestation is essentially reversible in principle), and it's very true to point out that industrial scale animal husbandry with its high cost in fossil - fuel - derived energy does mean that what might otherwise be a relatively closed system of cycling CO2 from the atmosphere through plants and then animals and back to the atmosphere, does become net positive with respect to CO2 emissions.

Therefore emissions from burning fossil fuels would add only plain carbon to the atmosphere.

And yet, despite a long history of scientific warnings (please see Footnote 30 for a detailed description30), the many current ecological and economic impacts and crises, the future risks and dangers, the large number of international meetings and conferences on the urgent need for climate policies and measures, and the adoption of some national and regional climate policies, growth in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement has not only remained strong but is actually accelerating.

Pursuing shale gas only makes possible sense, from a climate perspective, if you accept the urgency of reducing emissions, in which case if it genuinely is lower emitting than other fossil fuel sources then it could be used to replace those sources in the short and medium terms.

As I have provided clear reasons to not treat the fact that the globally poorest will suffer most from climate change as a reason to not reduce fossil fuel use, we are now only discussing whether or not mentioning the disproportionate impact of global warming on the poor is more or less likely to persuade people to modify their behaviour and reduce emissions.

While fuel cells still have some substantive CO2 emissions, they are only 45 % that of coal generation and 47 % the amount emitted from the production of energy using fossil fuels.