Sentences with phrase «enough about fossil fuels»

But enough about fossil fuels — have I mentioned forests yet?

Not exact matches

Reactors are expensive and fossil fuels are cheap enough that utility companies are nervous about undertaking such long, costly projects.

Dig deep enough in the «crooked skeptics» accusation, and you ultimately discover that in regard to the notion about skeptics being in a pay - for - performance arrangement with anybody in the fossil fuel industry, there's only one usable weapon in the enviro - activists» arsenal to indict those skeptics as industry - paid shills: the supposedly leaked industry memo set from a public relations campaign called the «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) supposedly containing the «reposition global warming» strategy goal, which targeted «older, less - educated males» and «younger, lower - income women.»

About 24 years — that's how long it will take for humans to burn enough fossil fuels and emit enough carbon (at current and projected rates) to use up that «carbon budget.»

But don't worry that this is actually causing Global Cooling - there really isn't enough fossil fuel on the planet to worry about the atmosphere getting too thin or about running out of oxygen.

For continued fossil fuel burning would be enough to force a release of Arctic carbon stores equal to 35 % or more of the human annual emission, or about 3.5 to 4 gigatons of carbon each year.

However pesonally I worry about energy security (we do nt have enough of it here) and in the other sense I don't like the idea of being in thrall to fossil fuel suppliers who basically don't like us.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

If he's worried about ice ages, perhaps he should ponder the selfishness of squandering what could have been a useful geoengineering resource to future generations faced with an imminent glaciation; carefully burning fossil fuels to enhance the greenhouse effect just enough to maintain temperatures in the face of declining northern - hemisphere insolation due to the Milankovich cycles may well be the most cost - effective method for them to do so, if those resources are still around at the time.

«At a time of rising fossil - fuel costs and increased concern about greenhouse - gas emissions, the Stirling project would provide enough clean power to serve 278,000 homes for an entire year,» said SCE Chairman John Bryson.

You'd have to make an unrealistic assumption about extractable coal reserves (plus shale to oil, tar sands etc.) to believe that we don't have enough fossil fuels to really wreck the Earth's climate.

The usual activists like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth remind us that the whole thing is just another hand out for fossil fuels and it doesn't mention anything about deep enough carbon emission reductions.