Sentences with phrase «for fossil fuel pollution»

Do you think they will support the types of price increases and severe rationing required to account for fossil fuel pollution clean - up?

Not exact matches

Other activities include: producing products that may be recycled at the end of their lifespan for material reuse; reducing energy consumption in operations; or even re-engineering distribution methods as a means of reducing long - distance travel during product delivery, ultimately reducing fossil fuel consumption (and the disease - causing air pollution that is its byproduct).

«There is a straightforward, proven formula for cutting carbon pollution: clean up your electricity system and shift from fossil fuels to clean power for heating buildings, fueling cars, and powering industry.

For example, the growth of secondary industries and their use of fossil fuels has led to the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels and the pollution of the atmosphere with excess carbon dioxide and other gases.

Many of the same warnings Mario Cuomo heard in the 1980s about Shoreham are the same ones his son hears today from supporters of Indian Point: Closing a nuclear plant will result in blackouts, a less reliable electric grid and increased air pollution as fossil fuels are burned to replace the lost emissions - free nuclear power; customers could face higher bills; more than 1,000 jobs will be lost, and tax revenue for schools and towns will dissipate.

Domestic industries can make it from a range of chemical feedstocks and energy sources (for instance, from renewable, nuclear and fossil - fuel sources), and the nontoxic gas could serve as a virtually pollution - free energy carrier for machines of many kinds.

One reason for this push is the consequences of the alternatives: pollution from fossil - fueled power plants shortens the life span of as many as 30,000 Americans a year; coal and hydraulic fracturing threaten the environment and water supplies; and oil dependence undermines the nation's energy security.

And that makes controlling O3 pollution from fossil fuel burning as important for climate change as it is for human and plant health.

For the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon - dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man - made climate influences - a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he saFor the industrial era, Lovejoy's analysis uses carbon - dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels as a proxy for all man - made climate influences - a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he safor all man - made climate influences - a simplification justified by the tight relationship between global economic activity and the emission of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution, he says.

Indeed, he has evidence: the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and «80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year.

Whether it's physical shipments of the fossil fuel or the buying and selling of the permits for the pollution that burning it causes — Evolution's first trade was a sulfur dioxide allowance between Enron and Dynegy in February of 2000 — the brokerage makes its living on coal.

Burning fossil fuels to produce electricity or heat is responsible for roughly half of global warming pollution.

The jury is still out on whether hydrogen will ultimately be our environmental savior, replacing the fossil fuels responsible for global warming and various nagging forms of pollution.

This strategy will be cheaper than installing the extra pollution - control equipment that will be needed when emission standards become more stringent in 2000, says James Davis, the company's senior vice-president for fossil fuel generation.

Fossil fuel - based electricity production is responsible for about 38 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions — CO2 pollution being the major cause of global climate change.

The pope adds that there are damaging health effects, particularly for the poor, from fossil fuel pollution.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says that taxes in major economies are far below the cost of pollution from the use of fossil fuels on climate and the environment, urging governments to do more to make polluters pay.

For one thing, plant - based diets use fewer natural resources (such as water and fossil fuels) and create less pollution than meat - heavy diets.

As here, refuting Jon Kirwan's concern (# 150): «the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and «80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year.»

If you want to assume that aerosols resulting from pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels were responsible for the cooling evident from 1940 through the late 70's, then you have no reason to claim ANY degree of warming due to CO2 forcing during any earlier period.

But Obama faces a reality that many of these groups seem slow to recognize: While the 20th - century toolkit preferred by traditional environmentalists — litigation, regulation and legislation — remains vital to limiting domestic pollution risks such as the oil gusher, it is a bad fit for addressing the building human influence on the climate system, which is driven now mainly by a surge in emissions mostly outside United States borders in countries aiming to propel their climb out of poverty on the same fossil fuels that generated much of our affluence.

It would be cheaper for me to have my sewer ending in my backyard, if I didn't mind the stench and disease and expense accompanying that economic choice; fossil fuel pollution is a little less obvious so we've been able to ignore it more easily until now.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned — again just yesterday — will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible, be it more for geopolitical reasons and pollution reduction than for fear for a runaway warming...

Those who got rich by burning fossil fuels have taken up the available atmospheric space for carbon pollution, leaving little for the rest.

The electric utility industry is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for one - third of total US greenhouse gas emissions and about 40 percent of all carbon pollution from fossil fuel burning.

Investments that encourage the construction of new renewable resources will cut the demand for fossil fuel - based electricity, reducing air pollution and global warming emissions.

From a global perspective, we are faced with daunting challenges as documented in World Resources, 1996 - 97: the accelerating confluence of population expansion, increased demand for energy, food, clean drinking water, adequate housing, the destructive environmental effects of pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear waste, plus the growing divergence between the haves and have - nots and the potential for ensuing conflicts.

On September 27th, 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument on challenges to EPA's landmark limits on the harmful carbon pollution from the nation's fossil fuel - burning power plants.

Now for context: This was a response to someone claiming fossil fuel CO2 was pollution.

While planting trees for bioenergy would no doubt lead to an uptick in ozone pollution, it should be noted that burning fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — is generally seen as a larger and graver contributor to air pollution than tree plantations.

I am all for making fossil fuels cleaner, and much work has already been done to make various fossil fuel devices (coal - fired power stations, internal combustion engines, etc) emit less pollution like NOx, SOx, Hg, Pb, and particulates.

An APS press release from June 1, 2016 says it is requesting $ 3.6 billion in upgrades and maintenance for the grid; and then lists $ 500M for Ocotillo gas plant refurbishing, plus $ 400M for the 1,636 MW Four Corners coal plant, but rate case testimony by APS general manager of fossil fuel generation John Lucas states that APS will spend $ 435 million on pollution control (Selective Catalytic Reduction or SCR) for Four Corners.

APS, like the vast majority of fossil - fueled electric utilities, refuses to recognize the enormous costs of pollution to public health (17 - 27 cents / kWh for coal according to Dr. Paul Epstein from Harvard), the hidden costs of leaking coal ash ponds, and the looming costs of climate change, drought and extreme weather.

For example, traffic pollution has been dramatically reduced by adoption of fossil fuels.

Interestingly, the landmark international accord draws a big fat highlight (and maybe a circle and some stars in the margin) across the work that activists and leaders are doing in the Pacific Northwest: not just the work to keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay for their pollution, but also our work to reduce the influence of money in politics and reform broken North American democratic institutions.

Friedman... would have viewed climate change as a negative externality associated with burning fossil fuels and would have believed that society was entitled to recover its losses from those who emit carbon to advance their economic interests... While there is a market for the products that are associated with greenhouse gas emissions — like electricity, fuel and steel — there is no market for the pollution inflicted by their manufacturers on the public.

Here's a story we all now know well: A small number of groups backed by the fossil fuel industry have for decades shed doubt on the science of climate change, even as the actual scientific community consensus on the issue — that greenhouse gas pollution posed a significant threat to our climate — remained strong and continued to grow stronger.

Even with the Guardian's welcome campaign, the world still needs a transparent price on carbon pollution to strangle demand for fossil fuels by replacing them with non-carbon alternatives.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says that taxes in major economies are far below the cost of pollution from the use of fossil fuels on climate and the environment, urging governments to do more to make polluters pay.

Nathaniel Keohane, Vice President for Global Climate, Environmental Defense Fund, said: «In the same week that we learned global carbon pollution is on the rise again after three flat years, the Trump administration came to Bonn to sell the world on fossil fuels.

It's the vast majority of climate scientists vs (in this particular case) a front group for activities by PR disinformation specialists, financed indirectly by fossil fuel companies and others opposed to regulation of GHG emission pollution.]

Now it's time for DC to lead again — not only in cutting fossil fuel pollution but in creating a more just and sustainable economy for all.

For too long, oil companies have reaped massive profits through a monopoly over our transportation options, leaving people with few alternatives to fossil fuels — fuels which are by far Washington's largest source of climate and air pollution.

Those reductions in pollution mean big gains for health, as pollutants from fossil fuel combustion contribute to four of the leading causes of death in the United States: cancer,...

Unfortunately for the fossil fuel industry, natural gas only reduces pollution by 55 % (compared to coal) at the power plant, and only by 17 % (compared to gasoline) out of car tailpipes.

The «pollution paradigm» of climate change limits the opportunities for addressing or solving the issue, in part because fossil fuel emissions make up such a small fraction of the annual flux of CO2 into the atmosphere (less than 3 %).

Reduced demand for fossil fuels will improve the environment by reducing air and water pollution as well as the heat - trapping gases that cause global warming.

This includes the combustion of fossil fuels, clearing of forests to make way for agriculture, and pollution of our water and air that effect biological activity.

Now it's time for D.C. to lead again — not only in cutting fossil fuel pollution but in creating a more just and sustainable economy for all.