Sentences with phrase «emitting ghgs»

This division is based entirely upon where the proposed activities intervene in the process that I can best describe as being between «emitting GHGs» and «experiencing impacts of climate change».

Radiative forcing is a multiplier that is added to the carbon emissions factor, that quantifies these additional effects; including the fact that emitting GHGs in the upper atmosphere has a greater heat - trapping effect than emitting GHGs at ground level.

The science is clear to me and to most experts in the various fields associated with climate science: Humans are causing most of the observed global warming in the past several decades and, if we continue emitting GHGs under a «business as usual» scenario, it will become increasingly difficult and costly to adapt to the changes that are likely to occur.

So while the sensitivity of CO2 / warming may be an important (though somewhat uncertain) matter, so too is how sensitive nature is in emitting GHGs in response to the warming (& to the concomitant GW effects), and this it seems is a lot more uncertain and has a lot more potential for danger... like some sleeping monster we keep poking.

RE # 27, here's an idea: Create a GHG tax, so that the cost of emitting GHGs goes up, but then put that money from taxes back in people's pockets, so they haven't lost one cent.

Some environmentalists even follow the precautionary principle of disallowing actions, unless they are proven safe — like not emitting GHGs beyond needs and simple pleasures, unless we are 99 % certain AGW is not happening (the higher level of certainty is due to the risks being so grave).

Yes, we certainly do need to immediately halt this ridiculous policy of burning fossil fuels and emitting GHGs into the atmosphere until we know for certain that they don't cause GW.

And / or it could come from nature emitting GHGs as a response to the warming and its many effects (right now I'm thinking wildfires, but there's also methane from melting permafrost & ocean hydrates).

Re # 8: «We need to understand why people are emitting GHGs at such high levels, and why they do not cease & desist (or at least reduce) in the face of scientific evidence that GW may harm them and / or their progeny & others on planet earth.»

So given our current world system, governments must set a cost for emitting GHGs.

Re # 8: «We need to understand why people are emitting GHGs at such high levels, and why they do not cease & desist (or at least reduce) in the face of scientific evidence that GW may harm them and / or their progeny & others on planet earth.»

If human emitted GHGs do contribute to GW, even in a little, then this could trigger a much larger climate response (since the climate varies so wildly from natural causes).

Also to my meager knowledge the atmosphere and the warming properties of GHGs do not distinguish between «natural» and industrial - emitted GHGs, responding only to the former with warming, but not to the latter.

So when we do things that emit GHGs, we also likely emit local pollution that kills, & becomes regional acid rain (destroying lakes, crops & forests), & acidifies the ocean, depletes the ozone layer (some pollutants), and maybe a hundre other harms, in addition to contributing to GW, and to runaway GW.

I think the way it works right now is on April 15th we pay for other people to lavishly emit GHGs through subsidies & tax breaks to fossil fuels.

There were no scientific claims of catastrophe UNLESS we do nothing and continue to emit GHGs (and therefore increase planetary heat retention) like there is not even an issue.

So perhaps Haiyan was intensified by our continued GHG emissions, or perhaps it wasn't and the storm and destruction would have happened anyway, but one thing is clear: every year we continue emitting GHG into the atmosphere we increase the odds of creating extreme weather like Haiyan.

Provides that a stationary source is not required to apply for, or operate pursuant to, a permit solely because the source emits any GHGs that are regulated solely because of their effect on global climate change.

It is about the evidence suggesting that continuing to emit GHGs into the atmosphere carries the risk of potentially severe outcomes

If you think that they're not defensible, then it's hard not to conclude that you think that anthropogenically - driven climate change is not happening and that it won't continue to happen if we continue to emit GHGs into the atmosphere.

Uncertainty does not, in other words, give Policy makers the option of saying they have support for continued actions that emit GHGs.

I started out very skeptical that we understood the climate system well enough to conclude that most if not all of the warming since 1950 was due to human emitted GHG's.

This question is designed to expose the ethical duty of all nations to reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions regardless of what other nations do because any nation emitting ghg emissions above its fair share of safe global emissions is contributing to elevated atmospheric ghg concentrations which are harming and threatening others.

The permits allow holders to emit ghgs usually in tons of carbon for a specific period.

Those nations who have consistently emitted ghgs above their fair share of safe global ghg emissions are responsible for the reasonable adaptation costs and damages of poor nations and people who have not caused climate change.These responsibilities are required both by basic ethics and justice and international law.

If nations must reduce their ghg emissions by the same percentage amount, then such an allocation will freeze into place huge differences in per capita rights to emit ghg emissions into the atmosphere.

It may give those nations who emit GHG a duty to protect the people who suffer from it, or at least to make restitution to them for any harms they suffer.

These issues include: (a) the need to determine when the obligation of any nation is triggered, (b) difficulties in determining which adaptation and compensation needs are attributable to human - induced warming versus natural variability, (c) challenges in allocating responsibilities among all nations that have emitted ghg above their fair share of safe global emissions, (e) challenges in prioritizing limited funds among all adaptation and compensation needs, (f) needs to set funding priorities in consultation with those who are vulnerable to climate change impacts as a matter of procedural justice, and (e) the need to consider the capacity of some nations to fund adaptation and compensation needs.

Myhrvold and Wood also worry that it would make people complacent about continuing to emit GHGs instead of using the sulfur straw as a short - term solution.

Many have argued that responsibility for reducing ghg emissions should not only be based upon production of ghgs within a nation, the current presumption of international negotiations, but on products consumed in a nation but produced in another nations in processes which emitted ghgs.

As we continue to emit GHGs, we are pushing towards whichever of those tipping points are closest.

As for other arguments — that there is warming, but not from human emitted GHGs — it seems to me all other explanations have been pretty well shot down.

Not exact matches

The Harper government's is downright deceptive: under it, greenhouse emissions could actually rise as their «intensity» (the amount of GHGs emitted for a dollar of GDP) falls.

We also note with concern that the new small business payroll tax comes on top of previously announced minimum wage increase (of 34 % over four years), an increase in the general corporate tax rate of 9.1 %, a 14 % increase to the personal income tax rate of most «skilled professionals», and a previously scheduled increase in the BC carbon tax of 16 %, moving up a further $ 5 to $ 35 per tonne of GHGs emitted.

On World Food Day, IFOAM — Organics International calls for an end to the use of toxic inputs that are destroying soils and ecosystems as well as emitting ozone depleting greenhouse gases (GHG).

International nonprofit GRAIN has revealed that the world's top 10 dairy companies emitted roughly 231Mt (million tons) of CO2 in 2016, the equivalent of half of France's total GHG footprint and a quarter of the emissions emitted by Germany.

It was hoped this successor would encompass all major GHG emitting emitting countries.

The gases of most interest — GHGs — strongly emit / absorb some of the thermal infrared wavelengths that transfer heat from the earth to space.

Even if this does pan out (and I'd love for even a lower sensitivity to pan out), 2C still puts us in trouble, considering the very high levels of GHGs we are emitting.

Thus, at that point in the future, a lessor volume of accumulated GHGs in the atmosphere would mean a global climate that is not as warm as the global climate would have been had we not emitted fewer GHG emissions now.

Emitting fewer GHG emissions now will result in a volume of accumulated GHGs at a given point in the future that will be less than it would have been had we not emitted fewer GHG emissions.

What will likely prove most effective, however, is the increase in technology dedicated to sustainable, cleaner (lower GHG - emitting in the short AND long term) energy production.

It is our moral obligation to emit fewer GHG emissions.

Once GHGs are subject to regulation, new stationary sources (i.e. smokestacks) that emit more than certain thresholds of GHGs will require permitting that mandates the «best available control technology» for GHGs.

So we really do need to halt this ongoing and dangerous policy of continuing to emit (even increasingly emit) GHGs... at least until they are 99 % confident the null hypothesis is correct!

While GHGs / aerosols may be the dominant factor in the average increase, they are emitted in rather continuous increasing amounts for GHGs and increasing + constant (after 1975) amounts for sulfate aerosols.

RE # 44 & 45, I hope you're not making the contrarian argument that whatever GHGs humans emit are aborbed into nature, and it is only nature's GHGs that are up there in the atmosphere, or that somehow human emissions are absorbed first, and nature's emissions last.

Secondly, the equations allow you to prediction that change in both radiation received at earth's surface or emitted to space as atmospheric GHG composition changes with exquisite accuracy.

Since evidence of GW has continued to pour in and become stronger & stronger (and since I'm saving heaps of money by abating it), I don't think any contrarian or scientist can convince me to start emitting more GHGs, even if it becomes 100 % certain AGW is not happening.

If so, I think we have to look at the marginal effect, or what would be the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, if humans had not started emitting so much over the past 150 years, then compare that with the situation today.