Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel burning go»

If there is a second source, and that source is the cause of rising CO2 levels, then there must also be an explanation where the CO2 emissions of fossil fuel burning go.

Not exact matches

The province, though, needs to recognize that if an emission - constrained world is going to limit the royalty revenue it collects from extracting fossil fuels, then it will be better off with a tax regime that adds money to provincial coffers when fuel is burned.

Much of the carbon dioxide given off from the burning of fossil fuels goes into the ocean, where it changes the acid balance of seawater.

This relates to the whole area of development for people talking about biofuels, which is this idea of trying to develop replacements for the conventional sorts of fossil fuels that we have to at least — if we are going to be burning some sort of hydrocarbons of some kind — to try to get them [so] that they are being derived from a different source, and potentially or ideally, ones that would actually burn without delivering as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere too; that's great if you can get that.

If the mathematics of the pollution produced by burning a gallon of fossil fuel seems daunting, it's even worse to look the other way: what went into making that gallon.

That mobilized me to think about when we burn fossil fuels or dump garbage, there is no way it just goes somewhere else.»

«Of the carbon dioxide human beings put into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation,» Berry says, «roughly a third remains in the atmosphere, a third goes into terrestrial ecosystems, and a third goes into the ocean.»

They can not tell us how much money will be invested in green energy R&D, whether fertility rates will go up or down, whether we will dig up all the remaining fossil fuels and burn them, or the outcomes of numerous other decisions that affect the atmosphere — though they can tell us what will probably happen if we do or don't take them (see «Earth, 2100 AD: Four futures of environment and society «-RRB-.

McKibben: Yeah, it could be and [they] are very interrelated because the thing that's allowed that complexity [and] that size is the access to endless amounts of cheap fossil fuel, which we no longer are going to have, a) because we're starting to run out, b) more powerfully because we can no longer safely burn it.

«This means that mercury released through fossil fuel burning from countries over 3000 km away goes up in the atmosphere and ends up in Antarctica.»

«Although these results are «good news» in the sense that the underlying physiology of plants is not going to make the warming of the planet radically worse, the problem we have created in the first place with our greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning still exists,» he says.

«If we don't stop burning fossil fuel and cutting down our tropical forests — all those human activities that maintain our society — we're going to reach incredibly high levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

He presents a fairly precise assessment of climate change, but he is so uncertain on remediation possibilities and really avoids stating directly that fossil fuel burning must go.

Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in the U.S. fell between 2009 and 2013, but greenhouse gases from burning those fuels went up.

No oil is imported and no fossil fuels are burned when you go whale watching with us.

Within 100 years humanity is going to burn up virtually all the oil and coal and other fossil fuels that can be feasibly mined from the earth, and that's just the way things are going to be.

However, if one considers the enormous increase of reactive nitrogen in our biosphere, due to the use of synthesized fertilizer and the burning of fossil fuels, its impact is not part of the analysis, even tough this increase shows up in the eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) of open waters all over the world, resulting in excess algae, in some areas causing large algae blooms (as where they are going to hold the sailing regattas during the Olympics), red tides and dead zone, as the 8000 square mile dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

Well, given humankind's renewed eagerness to burn fossil fuels and their long lifetime in the atmosphere, even a climate sensitivity below the low end estimate (which no one believes) or at the low end (which is highly unlikely) can still be overwhelmed by CO2 emissions going forward.

The world seems to be awakening to the fact that if we all continue on the «business as usual», burn - fossil - fuels - until - they're - gone trajectory, we can't stop or slow global warming.

As if the title weren't misleading enough, the article goes on to say that «Many scientists believe the burning of fossil fuels is causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, triggering... the greenhouse effect.»

Various researchers studying the interface of climate and energy policy have said that such technology is well worth pursuing, particularly given that oil and other liquid fossil fuels are almost surely going to be burned — particularly in vehicles or other dispersed sources — for many years to come, according to many assessments.

When fossil fuels are burned and CO2 gets trapped in the atmosphere, it is then absorbed by the ocean: 93 percent of trapped carbon goes into the ocean.

Consequently with the dramatic decrease in efficiency of fuel burn in the standby fossil fuel generators there is sweet FA practical reduction in CO2 emissions with the introduction of wind and solar power generation systems particularly when the energy costs of the producing and building the so called renewable energy systems are added to the grossly inefficient running of the ready to go to full generation capacity in minutes, fossil fuel powered standby generators which in many cases must be kept running at low or zero power generation to be able to come on line in minutes when the so called renewable energy systems fail to produce power,

The «moral hazard» argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a «Trojan horse» that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect of cost - effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point in the future we'll have the CDR techniques to remove these present - day emissions).

And that most of the rest is expected to go in the next thirty with the future warming that is already built into the system from the fossil fuels we are burning now?

Significant effort is going into researching and developing ways of capturing and storing CO2 emitted from fossil fuels when they are burned.

Surely, if we are to be actively concerned about the impacts of nuclear power, or even nuclear accidents, then shouldn't we be going through the roof about the impacts of fossil fuel burning?

But as the world develops, I think there's still going to be an awful lot of fossil fuels burned.

And if humans go on burning fossil fuels at the present profligate way, the areas suitable for growing coffee could drop somewhere between 73 % and 88 % by 2050.

Burning agricultural waste, or burning coal inefficiently, or burning kerosene for lighting — any fossil fuel or biofuel burned incompletely is going to produce some amount of black Burning agricultural waste, or burning coal inefficiently, or burning kerosene for lighting — any fossil fuel or biofuel burned incompletely is going to produce some amount of black burning coal inefficiently, or burning kerosene for lighting — any fossil fuel or biofuel burned incompletely is going to produce some amount of black burning kerosene for lighting — any fossil fuel or biofuel burned incompletely is going to produce some amount of black carbon.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences founded by Abraham Lincoln back in the 19th century, all the national academies of all of the major industrial nations around the world have all gone on record as stating clearly that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate through our continued burning of fossil fuels.

Car dependence and labour - saving devices have cut the energy people expend as they go about their lives, at the same time increasing the amount of fossil fuel they burn.

The EPA says the Kemper County Energy Facility offers a real - life example that it is possible to go on burning the dirtiest of fossil fuels and still make the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions needed to avoid a climate catastrophe.

There is another pretty little graph called MBH98 AKA the hockey stick, this shows us the temp going back about one thousand years and it shows us the temp had not changed one iota until man started to burn fossil fuel, this graph coupled with the CO2 graph clearly showed how mans CO2 emissions where drivng the temps.

Let's go ahead and pump, dig, excavate and burn every last possible fossil fuel we can as the Earth is immune to anything humans can do.

We don't know whether what you claim are benefits of «cheap» fossil fuels can really be attributed to their low cost or not, as we can't go back and check on every case as its price impacts work their way through the economy, nor can we speculate about foregone benefits, or whether the benefits are due to the artificially reduced price of burning carbon or whether people would enjoy them (or even greater benefits) in a fair market, except by examining by Capitalist analysis.

«Now, as we burn fossil fuels, the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down.

This is roughly the rise predicted by climate change scenarios in which humans go on burning fossil fuels, to deposit ever more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But our work will go on until the social license to extract and burn fossil fuels is gone.

A lot of decarbonization is via carbon sequestration from burning fossil fuels and going towards biomass.

The Commonwealth Government's independent Climate Commission released a report yesterday saying climate change is still real, it is still caused mainly by burning fossil fuels and digging up trees and the consequences are still going to be bad.

... Ultimately, if we are going prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we are going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them...

A person can ignore climate science, go with the flow, and continue burning fossil fuels like everybody else.

We simply can't go on drilling, excavating, and burning every ton of coal, oil, and gas the fossil fuel industry finds.

Heck, on this very website, I have noted before that I myself am quite skeptical of Jim Hansen's recent claims that if we really go to town burning fossil fuels then we could / likely would trigger a true Venus - like runaway greenhouse effect.

Gingrich, who in 2007 told The New York Times that it was conceivable human beings were playing a role in global warming, went further in a recent interview when he said he doubted there was a connection between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels.

Most importantly, the Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel, so what are they going to do with the 5 — 6 billion corps?

Joel Shore says, «Heck, on this very website, I have noted before that I myself am quite skeptical of Jim Hansen's recent claims that if we really go to town burning fossil fuels then we could / likely would trigger a true Venus - like runaway greenhouse effect.

Before the show had even gone to air, the program was causing controversy with commentators — myself and others including Clive Hamilton, Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley — pointing out its format gave the false impression of there being a legitimate scientific debate about fossil fuel burning causing climate change.

And in order to stop the CO2 from rising we have to go to a factor - of - ten reduction in fossil - fuel burning — at least a factor of ten.