Sentences with phrase «emitting nations of»

Not to mention the fact that the governments of China and India, the most important emitting nations of the 21st century, continue to reiterate in formal, public statements that they have no intention of sacrificing economic development in order to reduce emissions.

Not exact matches

«Garden equipment engines emit high levels of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, producing up to 5 % of the nation's air pollution and a good deal more in many metropolitan areas like Los Angeles.

Inner Mongolia has become the center of the coal industry in China — the nation that burns the most coal and, as a result, emits the most greenhouse gases in the world

Some environmental groups have called on rich nations to assess how much carbon the world can continue to emit while still having a shot of keeping temperatures below 2 C above preindustrial levels, and then make the case for using up whatever it cites as a «fair share» of those gigatons.

The leaders of the world's two largest greenhouse - gas - emitting nations touted two previous joint emissions deals, gave nearly back - to - back speeches on the urgency of tackling the climate threat and together issued a statement of support for an ambitious global accord.

Industrialized and developing nations emit about 2,000 tons of mercury into the atmosphere every year.

TVA is also one of the nation's largest producers of hydropower, which like nuclear generation emits no greenhouse gases but has other environmental downsides.

The amount of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere has quickly increased as well, with about a third of the total added by human activity — much of that emitted by nitrogen - based fertilizers, and half of that from just three nations: China, the Soviet Union, and the United States.

The Chernobyl accident emitted much more radioactivity and a wider diversity of radioactive elements than Fukushima Daiichi has so far, but it was iodine and caesium that caused most of the health risk — especially outside the immediate area of the Chernobyl plant, says Malcolm Crick, secretary of a United Nations body that has just reviewed the health effects of Chernobyl.

He supports a national carbon price, wants to derive 100 percent of the nation's electricity from clean sources by 2050 and has suggested that he would regulate emitting sectors like industry.

The U.S. has 104 reactors scattered throughout the country, producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity — and 70 percent of our electricity that emits relatively little CO2 pollution, a point emphasized by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.

Of course, the world's nations emit over 30 billion metric tons of CO2 a yeaOf course, the world's nations emit over 30 billion metric tons of CO2 a yeaof CO2 a year.

He also worries that the use of the technique might encourage nations to continue emitting carbon dioxide «essentially into perpetuity.»

Under a carbon trading system, credits could be handed out to nations allowing them to emit, at the start, one tonne of carbon per head of their population.

-- It is the policy of the United States to work proactively under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in other appropriate fora, to establish binding agreements, including sectoral agreements, committing all major greenhouse gas - emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emiNations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in other appropriate fora, to establish binding agreements, including sectoral agreements, committing all major greenhouse gas - emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas eminations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.

About 90 percent of global trade in goods travels by ship, and the vessels together emit about as much greenhouse gases as Germany, the nation with the sixth - highest emissions in the world.

Why It Matters: Power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels emit more than 40 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide.

EPA Rules Controlling Greenhouse - gas Emissions — The big day for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy should come sometime in June, when her agency is scheduled to unveil historic standards controlling carbon emissions from the nation's fleet of power plants, which includes nearly 600 coal - fired plants poised to be hit the hardest, because coal emits more carbon than oil or natural gas.

If all goes according to its industry - heavy plans, each of the nation's residents will soon be emitting more than 8 times the average American.

The rise from 650,000 tons of CO2 emitted per year to 10 million is an astronomical one, and it's exactly the kind of high - emissions growth that many nations are trying to avoid at all costs.

The Plan puts the first - ever limits on the nation's biggest source of carbon pollution — some 1,500 coal - and gas - fired power plants that together emit nearly two billion tons per year of carbon dioxide.

Recent studies including an assessment by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization indicate that it's possible to slow the pace of warming and melting in the Arctic in the near term by reducing emissions of two common climate pollutants: black carbon and methane, both of which are emitted from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

At stake are limits on the nation's biggest single source of dangerous carbon pollution — some 1500 coal and gas fired power plants that together emit nearly two billion tons per year of carbon dioxide.

Garden equipment engines, which have had unregulated emissions untill very recently, emit high levels of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides, producing up to 5 % of the nation's air pollution and a good deal more in metropolitan areas.

Furthermore, most of the small island nations that are projected to experience future dryness do not emit greenhouse gases at the levels that continental nations do.

This is true because most mainstream scientists have concluded that the world must reduce total global emissions by at the very least 60 to 80 percent below existing levels to stabilize GHG atmospheric concentrations at minimally safe atmospheric GHG concentrations and the United States is a huge emitter both in historical terms and in comparison to current emissions levels of other high emitting nations.

As the largest greenhouse gas emitting nation, China clearly needs to show strong leadership to avoid the worst global impacts of climate change.

They include, among many others, principles on what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, who is responsible for reasonable adaptation needs of those people at greatest risk from climate damages in poor nations that have done little to cause climate change, should high - emitting nations help poor nations obtain climate friendly energy technologies, and what responsibilities should high - emitting nations have for refugees who must flee their country because climate change has made their nations uninhabitable?

As a matter of ethics high - emitting nations and individuals have had clear ethical duties to reduce ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions for over thirty years.

Australia and the USA are culpable on two counts, they are producing more greenhouse gasses than any other nations (considering population sizes) and they are doing less about controlling their emissions than any of the other major greenhouse gas emitting nations.

The concept is that every human being on this planet has the right to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide; therefore, citizens of developing nations would be given the same quota for emissions as citizens in industrialized nations.

In the United States and other high - emitting nations there is hardly a peep or a whisper about the practical consequences of seeing climate change as a world - challenging ethical problem.

[7] According to a 2009 report by Environment America, «America's Biggest Polluters,» the Monroe Power Plant is the seventh largest carbon dioxide emitting plant in the nation, releasing 20.6 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2007.

Declares that it is the policy of the United States to work proactively under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in other appropriate fora to establish binding agreements, including sectoral agreements, committing all major GHG - emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global GHG emiNations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in other appropriate fora to establish binding agreements, including sectoral agreements, committing all major GHG - emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global GHG eminations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global GHG emissions.

Although different theories of distributive justice would reach different conclusions about what «fairness» requires quantitatively, most of the positions taken by opponents of climate change policies fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny given the huge differences in emissions levels between high and low emitting nations and the enormity of global emissions reductions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The U.S. health care sector is highly interconnected with industrial activities that emit much of the nation's pollution to air, water, and soils.

Five of Europe's six most carbon emitting power plants are based in Germany, according to the Oeko - Institut e.V. Lignite power met 25 percent of the nation's demand last year, a figure that's been largely stable for the past two decades, according to AG Energiebilanzen e.V.

-- It is the policy of the United States to work proactively under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in other appropriate fora, to establish binding agreements, including sectoral agreements, committing all major greenhouse gas - emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emiNations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in other appropriate fora, to establish binding agreements, including sectoral agreements, committing all major greenhouse gas - emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas eminations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.

However in John's recent weekly news (28 Dec) the 3rd article (Climate change 2013: Where we are now - not what you think) contained - «The new IPCC report tells us that half of warming (57 %) that should have already occurred has been masked by aerosols mostly emitted since the turn of the century in rapidly developing Asian nations (yes, warming would double if cooling smog pollutants were suddenly cleaned up in Asia).»

«(iii) by country, annual total, annual per capita, and cumulative anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for the top 50 emitting nations;

• Approaches that account for the global dimensions of achieving and maintaining sustainable levels of atmospheric CO2 and encourage cooperative action by all countries, including the U.S. and large emitting nations in the developing world, to implement CO2 emission reduction strategies.

Taking Australia's share of this budget to be 1 per cent — arguably a generous measure as the nation makes up just 0.3 per cent of the world's population — the country will emit that 2.5 billion - tonne portion within six years at present polluting rates.

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.

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.

The reasons for this are that the remaining carbon budget is so small, the per capita and historical emissions of high - emitting developed nations are so large compared to poor developing countries, and the financial resources of developed countries are so large compared to poor developing countries that equity considerations demand that the high - emitting nations financially help developing nations achieve their targets.

Such a framing ignores that it is tens of millions of poor people around the world who will be most harmed by climate change if high - emitting nations fail to reduce their emissions to their fair share 0f safe global emissions.

This question is designed to expose the ethical duty of the United States and other high - emitting nations under international law to prevent its citizens from engaging in activities which cause climate change damages as a matter international law without regard to what other nations do.

The second is the urgency of the need for hard - to - imagine action to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions at all scales, that is globally, nationally, and locally, but particularly in high - emitting nations such as the United States in light of the limited amount of ghgs that can be emitted by the entire world before raising atmospheric ghg concentrations to very dangerous levels and in light of the need to fairly allocate ghg emissions reductions obligations around the world.

Those who are most vulnerable to climate change can do little to protect themselves, their best hope is that high emitting nations, sub-national governments, organizations, entities, and individuals will respond to their moral responsibilities to reduce the threat of climate change.

Given that mainstream climate change scientific view holds that the Earth could experience rapid non-linear climate change impacts which outstrip the ability of some people and nations to adapt, should this fact affect whether nations which emit high levels of ghgs should be able to use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for non-action on climate change?