Sentences with phrase «emissions goals if»

Generators naturally take a different view, pointing to renewable credits and questioning whether the country can meet emissions goals if it pushes out nukes.

Not exact matches

British - based research group InfluenceMap said an emissions cut of 70 percent would have been much closer to what is needed if shipping is to be in line with the goals of the Paris agreement.

It's essential to extend and expand tax incentives for carbon capture, update state laws to include CCUS technology in clean energy standards, and fund continued carbon capture RD&D, among other things, if we are going to reach our emissions - cutting goals.

It will be nearly impossible for the state to reach its goal of reducing emissions 40 percent by 2030 if there are still coal - burning power plants operating, she said.

«If the state is focused on reducing CO2 emissions, the clean energy standard should apply to Indian Point which is an essential generation resource critical to the state's goal of reducing CO2 emissions,» said Tammy Holden, speaking for Entergy.

Phasing out coal is one of the first steps the Cuomo administration must make if it hopes to meet its goal of drastically reducing air emissions by about 40 percent in the next decade, said Lisa Dix, senior New York representative for Sierra Club.

And tough new rules from the federal Environmental Protection Agency on power plant emissions will make closing Indian Point that much harder, if the state is to do so and still meet its other environmental goals.

«Logistically, negotiations on the agreement's detailed rules will likely take another year or two to finalize, and all countries will need to raise the ambition of their commitments under the agreement if we're to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and reach a goal of net - zero global warming emissions by midcentury,» said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

«The Commission is concerned that over-reliance on international offsets — given the practical difficulty of assuring that emissions reductions claimed in other countries are real, permanent, additional, and verifiable — could undermine program goals and political support, especially if substantial U.S. funds are leaving the country to support abatement efforts abroad rather than at home,» it states.

Prior to 2007 scientists weren't sure what emissions reduction goal to shoot for, but new evidence led researchers to reach consensus on 350 ppm if we wished to have a planet, in the words of NASA climatologist James Hansen, «similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.»

But 1 billion gallons of cellulosic by 2020 is an achievable goal, he said, and if the United States is to meet its promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it must maintain a commitment to biofuels.

«If your goal is 80 percent cuts [in CO2 emissions] by 2050, then it's not big enough.»

If your goal is to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then maybe you should switch to LEDs now,» said Lixi Liu, first author of the study and a doctoral student at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability and at the Department of Mechanical Engineering.

If those two goals are met, the United Nations calculates, global emissions will increase by only 1.3 percent.

If oil prices remain high and governments make progress on their emissions goals, there's a possibility that the world has already hit peak oil, and that the next few years will see its use plateau for a while before dropping again.

If that smaller group's offer is sufficient — that is, if it promises to reduce emissions by the proportional amount necessary to achieve the global goal — then it should be successful in the larger venuIf that smaller group's offer is sufficient — that is, if it promises to reduce emissions by the proportional amount necessary to achieve the global goal — then it should be successful in the larger venuif it promises to reduce emissions by the proportional amount necessary to achieve the global goal — then it should be successful in the larger venue.

All countries will suffer as a result of climate change, even if humanity slashes its emissions and stops temperatures rising more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels — the stated goal of the UN negotiations.

Unfortunately, jet fuel derived from coal results in even more CO2 emissions, which makes it no alternative at all if the goal is to combat climate change.

In a recent comment article in Nature, leading climate scientists identified achieving zero emissions from land - use changes and deforestation as one of six milestones that must be met within the next three years if we are to meet the goals set out in the Paris Agreement.

At the same time, a new paper published in Nature Geoscience examines the carbon budget for 1.5 C — in other words, how much more CO2 we can afford to release if we are to limit warming to the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement, taking into account recent emissions and temperatures.

It remains to be seen if we will also see mention of the scientific guidance that emissions should be reduced by at least half by 2050 or of interim goals of 25 - 40 % by 2020.

According to their math, if all Americans made this substitution, the United States would hypothetically almost meet its 2020 greenhouse gas - emission goals.

He said it was particularly important, if that goal is to be reached, for the federal government to work with utilities to curb emissions from power plants (half the country's electricity still comes from coal burning.).

Late last week, Stavins distributed a link to «Both Are Necessary, But Neither is Sufficient: Carbon - Pricing and Technology R&D Initiatives in a Meaningful National Climate Policy,» a defense of the primacy of a rising price on carbon if the goal is deep emissions cuts by mid-century.

If the goal is to capture carbon emissions, wouldn't it be more intelligent to try to fund technologies to recycle them into new energy or products?

What's really meant in a comment like «if one's goal is to limit climate change, one would always be better off spending the money on immediate reduction of CO2 emissions» is «if one's goal is limiting LONG - TERM climate change».

But, as yet, there's no set of such goals for those who are already living lives that many analysts say are consuming resources at a pace well beyond the planet's carrying capacity, particularly if the habits that attend affluence — from greatly increased meat consumption to unthinking energy use and greenhouse - gas emissions — are adopted by another few billion people.

In particular, John McCain's goal of a 60 % reduction by 2050 is a reminder of just how out of touch with current technology he is — I can't for the life of me figure out how in 42 years we could emit 40 % of our current emissions if we tried.

I asked Robert Socolow of Princeton, who is one of the authors of the paper on the super-polluters and a developer of the popular «wedges» approach to defining emissions goals, what he would say about the idea if he were in an elevator (in a tall building) with climate negotiators from the United States and China.

If others took it as seriously as they did, I suspect they could make even tougher goals to cut GHG emissions sooner.

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

As a longtime observer of a wide range of efforts to limit global warming, I see this as one of the least likely to succeed — and a bad match of tool and task — if the goal is, in fact, to limit warming, which would require global cuts in emissions.

Since, if I understood correctly, scientists point out that the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if all emissions stopped today, will take decades, I believe positively and steadily moving toward the goal will be most effective for the long - term.

This goal is deemed necessary to avoid incalculable risks to humanity, and it is feasible — but realistically only if global emissions peak by the year 2020 at the latest.

If our ultimate goal is to reduce carbon emissions and, hence, to save humanity, we must realize the psychological effect that the disturbing truth may have and teach about climate change and energy in a carefully thought - out manner based on the available research about human psychology.

The article points out that according to research conducted by a variety of institutions, the temperature goals set forth in the Paris Agreement will be unattainable if overall emissions are not decreased.

If CO2 emissions were really the goal, you'd be better off sinking research dollars into replacing ICE engines on things without emission controls - lawn mowers, weed whackers, leaf blowers, small boats, and mopeds.

LONDON, NEW YORK March 8 — Fossil fuel companies risk wasting $ 1.6 trillion of expenditure by 2025 if they base their business on emissions policies already announced by governments instead of international climate goals, Carbon Tracker warns in a report released today, that models the IEA's 1.75 C scenario for the first time.

If we as a society are able to significantly reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) to the levels identified in Oregon's statewide goals and the global Paris climate agreement, we can reduce the amount and speed of future climate change and its associated impacts.

Supports the cap emission reduction and formation of ECR but notes that RGGI States must go further if they are to align with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

You probably guessed that if the goal is to instill incentives that will bring about big emission reductions fast enough to avoid runaway global warming, the answer is B, the marathon.

If the Paris Agreement's goal of no more than 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) warming is to be reached, significant progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be made soon.

It's in China's own interest to accept greenhouse gas emissions goals, not just in the international interest... Like joining the WTO [World Trade Organization, in 2001], this should be used as international pressure to spur our own transformation... If China makes a 1 percent error in handling climate change, that could mean 100 percent failure in making [an international] agreement [on climate change].

Jim D, the Obama Administration's Climate Action Plan, of which the Clean Power Plan is one part, is not in any way indicative of what a truly aggressive approach to reducing America's carbon emissions should look like, if the goal is to reduce America's GHG emissions to the extent that the Progressive Left believes is necessary.

If the goal of the Clean Power Plan, environmentalists, and the energy industry in general is to lower emissions, it seems strange to shut down nuclear plants and replace them with natural gas.

The UN Environment Programme has previously estimated that emissions must fall to about 32 - 44 GtCO2e by 2030 if we are to have a better - than - even chance at hitting the 2 °C goal.

But the cost of reducing human CO2 emissions would be enormous and it would clearly damage the world's plants if it actually succeeded, which one would think would be a primary goal for those calling themselves «environmentalists» to avoid.

Defines «reporting entity» to mean: (1) a covered entity; (2) an entity that would be covered if it had emitted, produced, imported, manufactured, or delivered in 2008 or any subsequent year more than the applicable threshold level of carbon dioxide; (3) other entities that EPA determines will help achieve overall goals of reducing global warming pollution; (4) any vehicle fleet with emissions of more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent on an annual basis, if its inclusion will help achieve such reduction; (5) any entity that delivers electricity to a facility in an energy - intensive industrial sector that meets the energy or GHG intensity criteria.

In view of these conditions, going to the Coalition first was merely sensible, if the goal was to get some kind of emissions trading scheme passed.

If your goal was to reduce CO2 emissions in the US - what specifically would you do?