Sentences with phrase «even negative emissions»

Through carbon trade, countries with higher carbon emissions could purchase emission permit from those with lower emissions or even negative emissions.

Not exact matches

The world's food security would be ensured even with over 9 billion people in 2050, agricultural land area would not increase, greenhouse gas emissions would be lowered and the negative effects of today's intensive food systems, such as nitrogen surplus and high pesticide exposure, would be greatly reduced.

«The overall significance is that although we already know that reducing methane emissions can bring great societal benefits via decreased near - term warming and improved air quality, and that many of the sources can be controlled at low or even negative cost, we still need better data on emissions from particular sources,» Duke University climate sciences professor Drew Shindell said.

Still, a great portion of the «summary for policymakers» deals with the recent temperature rise, and it concludes that it's «likely» that there is a human contribution to the observed trend (by which I assume CO2 emissions are especially understood, even more so considered the negative forcings mentioned).

Dude, you don't even know the difference between negative emissions and feedbacks — even when past posters have used the proper terminology.

To limit warming to 2 °C, emissions must be zero or even negative by the end of the 21st century.

«If there was no constraint of any sort, one could imagine ever - growing positive emissions from fossil fuel burning, compensated by even stronger negative emissions.»

It's now well - established that large - scale U.S. production of biofuels such as ethanol from corn has accomplished little or nothing (or even negative) in its stated goals of reducing oil dependence and cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, and has functioned instead as a full - employment program for agribusiness (and a political production racket for Iowa and other corn - growing states).

The estimated SCC can be quite large, small, or even negative — the latter meaning that greenhouse gas emissions should arguably be subsidized because they benefit humanity — depending on defensible adjustments of the inputs to the analysis.

The EU and US have both reduced CO2 emissions significantly, at negligible or even negative economic cost.

Perhaps even negative considering a third of all human emissions since 1750 have been emitted over the past 18 years — with zero warming to show.

CO2 mitigation shouldn't even be on the list of things that need to be done until it can be demonstrated that the known benefits of higher atmospheric CO2, as well as the lower cost of energy production when CO2 emission is not subject to constraint, are outweighed by the imagined negatives.

Because it is a topic that's kind of reared up after the Paris Agreement, where suddenly we have this focus on 1.5 C, and we now realise, once we've looked under the bonnet of these models, that most of them do heavily rely, even the 2C ones, on negative emissions.

In fact, under some very reasonable assumptions, the social cost of carbon can even be negative, suggesting some benefits of carbon dioxide emissions.

Even though the intentions, of the Ecofys and Nature researchers particularly, was to minimize the need for negative emissions, neither was able to completely eliminate it.

«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.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that a CO2 concentration in the range 500 to 900 ppm might produce a temperature rise of at least 2 °C from the late 19th century that could be problematic for humankind; (7) The potential negative impact on humanity has been exaggerated; (8) The only alternative to rising greenhouse gas concentrations is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions — whether this averts a «pending disaster» is not well understood; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 probably resulting in some warming; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are neither technically feasible nor economically affordable, and would necessitate inadequate energy supply to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing, leading to worldwide depression.

Furthermore, all emission reduction scenarios even for a 2C world include negative emissions in the form of Carbon Capture and Storage.

This need may be even more urgent following the signing of the new Paris Agreement, with its implied commitment to substantial negative emissions.

The interesting thing is that the current absolute limit on net anthropogenic greenhouse emissions should be a low or probably even negative number designed to plateau and then reverse the atmospheric CO2 concentration back to pre-industrial levels over an agreed reasonable time span.

If agriculture can be sustainably expanded without a negative impact on emissions, the report says, agricultural exports could support development in both poor countries and large economies like Indonesia, Brazil and even the US.

So, lolwot, all your words provide NO EVIDENCE that the added CO2 from human emissions COULD (or will) be catastrophic or even have a negative, rather than a positive net overall impact.

The study cited above shows that at discount rates of 5 or 7 %, one of the models used by the IWG can even produce negative SCC values (in combination with lower climate sensitivity), implying that CO2 emissions are a net positive and could justifiably be subsidized.

By comparison, the equivalent can't be said for the roll - out of negative emissions technology around the world, or, in some cases, even the demonstration of it to work at scale.

The first order human forcings that are negative (e.g., sulphate emissions) and mask some of the CO2 forcing increase the risks of AGW; if they decrease because of Peak Oil, or economic changes, or are eliminated because of other adverse effects they have, the warming impact of the CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere will be even larger.

No matter what path we follow — even if we manage slightly negative emissions, i.e. artificially removing CO2 from the atmosphere — this model suggests we've got an extra 0.25 °C in the pipeline due to permafrost.

For even if the models are proven to be wrong with respect to their predictions of atmospheric warming, extreme weather, glacial melt, sea level rise, or any other attendant catastrophe, those who seek to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions have a fall - back position, claiming that no matter what happens to the climate, the nations of the Earth must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because of projected direct negative impacts on marine organisms via ocean acidification.

I, and others, claimed that our emissions are very low, or even negative, while living far better than a typical USian.