Sentences with phrase «fossil fuel consumption goes»

Scientists still don't know where some of the CO2 emitted from fossil fuel consumption goes.

Analysis in the new WEO - 2017 showed that for the first time the largest share of global subsidies that benefit fossil fuel consumption went to keep electricity prices artificially low (41 % of the global total), ahead of oil (40 %) and natural gas.

Not exact matches

When we mitigate greenhouse - gas emissions, we also create huge co-benefits in the nature of energy security, because if we continue to increase our consumption of fossil fuels, we're really going to put pressure on limited resources of these fossil fuels.

Most of the world is not going to move easily toward a world of lower fossil fuel consumption unless there are either considerable incentives to do so or considerable prices to be paid if they don't (or some combination of the two).

There are alternatives I don't think I convinced either of my two audiences that fossil fuels are going to disappear overnight, but once I drew their attention to recent declines in Chinese coal production and a stall in global carbon emissions they did appear to concede that basing future investment decisions simply on past patterns of consumption might not be the wisest of strategies.

To waste time talking about the «two sides» of this distracting argument, as the total consumption of fossil fuels goes up as fast as it can be removed from the ground is a shame.

Russia ranked third with $ 39.6 billion in fossil fuel consumption subsidies, 44 percent covering natural gas and 56 percent going to electricity.

Of the $ 78 billion in fossil fuel consumption subsidies Iran paid, 52 percent covered oil, 29 percent funded natural gas, and the remainder (20 percent) went to electricity.

It wasn't until after 1950 that fossil - fuel consumption went nuts.

As countries attain higher standards of living, that has generally gone hand - in - hand with increasing consumption of fossil fuels.

Steve, I agree that there are still plenty of questions left about what is really going to happen: — RRB - IMO, there are plenty of ethical, economic, political and environmental reasons for trying to minimise our overall environmental footprint, including fossil fuel consumption as a significant component of that.

Most «skeptics» have concluded, based on the available data, that the cost of «going to war» against CAGW (with carbon taxes, carbon rationing, top - down forced reductions in fossil fuel consumption, etc.) would be far greater than any «benefit» that might result, and would thus be «skeptical» of entering such a «war».

When C and E are no longer the most cost effective solutions to reductions in fossil fuel consumption, we go to the next most cost effective method, which will likely be nuclear.