Sentences with phrase «failed a state emission»

Not exact matches

And in 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, after lavishing campaign funds on state Senate Republicans, still failed to get his coveted congestion pricing plan for New York City to help reduce emissions and limit vehicular traffic in Manhattan.

-- If the Secretary finds that a State has failed to develop, submit or publish its emission reduction targets and strategies, the Secretary shall not certify that the requirements of this section are met with respect to the statewide planning process of such State.».

In short, the BMW Concept X5 eDrive shows itself to be supremely talented in every way, deftly bringing major advances in cutting fuel consumption and emissions into harmony with state - of - the - art functionality and everyday practicality that never fails to impress.

Some EU nations have done well on emissions reductions, but the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Spain and Italy have not just failed to make cuts — they have significantly increased their emissions.

It is absurd that, with the experience of these other democracies before them, and at the very time when the whole IPCC CAGW meme is in a state of collapse that Obama has decided to side step Congress and force through by regulation carbon emission controls based on his naïve faith in the failed predictions of the IPCC process.

Siding with four teenage plaintiffs and the environmental groups that backed them, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday ruled that the state has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States could seek approval to tax imported goods in proportion to their carbon dioxide emissions if exporting countries failed to enact carbon taxes at home.

Prohibits the Secretary from certifying compliance if an MPO or a state has failed to develop, submit, or publish its emission reduction targets and strategies.

The DOE in February withdrew its proposal to cap emissions, following a landmark ruling in November 2015 which found that the state's current standards fail to «preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality for the current and future generations.»

-- If the Secretary finds that a State has failed to develop, submit or publish its emission reduction targets and strategies, the Secretary shall not certify that the requirements of this section are met with respect to the statewide planning process of such State.».

«Any climate change legislation must prevent the export of jobs and related greenhouse gas emissions to countries that fail to take actions to combat the threat of global warming comparable to those taken by the United States,» they said.

It purports to quantify the economic risks of climate change threatening the United States, if the government fails to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The opponents of climate change policies have largely succeeded in opposing proposed climate change law and policy by claiming that government action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant government action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive climate policies as long as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies.

In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.

The US current ghg emissions reductions commitments clearly fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny for reasons stated here and summarized below.

Given that the United States and most other developed anions have for over twenty - five years failed to adequately respond to climate change because of alleged unacceptable costs to each nation and that due to the delay ghg emissions reductions now needed to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change are much steeper and costly than what would be required if these nations acted twenty five years ago, is it just for the United States and other developed nations to now defend further inaction on climate change on the basis of cost to it?

The opponents of climate change policies have succeeded in opposing proposed climate change law and policy by claiming that government action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant government action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive climate policies as long as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies.

Arguments in opposition to action on climate change based upon the claim that the United States acting alone will not significantly reduce the threat of climate change fails any ethical test because all nations have a duty to act to reduce their emissions to their fair share without regard to what other nations do.

In this regard, Obama's speech utterly failed to acknowledge the magnitude of the ghg emissions reductions that are ethically required of the United States in the next decade.

Economic harm arguments made in opposition to Obama's climate plan, for instance, even if true, both fail to recognize the ethical obligations that the United States has to not harm others through our ghg emissions and to acknowledge the costs of not acting.

That is, for instance, among other things, the Copenhagen Accord failed to get commitments from the United States and some other developed countries to reduce ghg emissions at levels necessary to prevent serious climate change damage.

While comprehensive climate and energy legislation has thus far failed to pass the United States Congress, there are a series of vital programs and strategies underway in the United States to reduce global warming emissions, such as:

Although there are many countries other than the United States that have frequently failed to respond to what justice would require of them to reduce the threat of climate change, the United States, perhaps more than any other country, has gained a reputation in the international community for its consistent unwillingness to commit to serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions during the over two decades that world has been seeking a global agreement on how to respond to climate change.

However, since many arguments about what levels of GHG emissions should be required of groups and individuals fail to conform to any respectable theory of just distributions, it is possible to conclude that some levels of GHG emissions levels are unjust without being able to state unambiguously what justice requires.

After a Massachusetts court sided with a group of teenagers by ruling the state had failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, [55] Marc Morano — executive director of CFACT's ClimateDepot project — claimed today's youth are being indoctrinated by the environmental movement: [56]

After a Massachusetts court sided with a group of teenagers by ruling the state had failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, [57] Marc Morano claimed that today's youth are being indoctrinated by the environmental movement: [58]

The United States will also come under fire for failing to cut its emissions sufficiently.

In some senses, the Kyoto Protocol has «failed» insofar as it didn't establish sufficiently effective mechanisms that states genuinely trying to cut their emissions could use.

Yet the world's second largest carbon polluter, the United States, has consistently failed to take tough national measures to curb its emissions, owing to fierce resistance by the fossil - fuel industry and its conservative allies.

If, however, federal agencies fail to capitalize on available reduction opportunities and states fall short on their announced plans to reduce emissions, middleof - the - road or lackluster reductions will result, falling far short of the 17 percent reduction by 2020 goal.

The State Department failed to account for the potential emissions from the increase in the global supply of oil, said study co-author Peter Erickson, a...