Sentences with phrase «fossil fuels at»

Governments simply can not be climate leaders while continuing to finance fossil fuels at current rates.

Under the notorious business - as - usual scenario, in which humans go on burning fossil fuels at an ever - increasing rate, and releasing ever more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then the dunes of North Africa's Sahara will march northwards and southern Spain will become a desert.

China got 9.8 per cent of its energy from sources not linked to fossil fuels at the end of 2013, and the government intends that to reach 15 per cent by 2020, the New York Times points out.

If countries continue to use fossil fuels at the current rate, the chances to stay under the goals of the Paris Agreement are not slim: they are nonexistent.

We see April 29th as the culmination of our work to fight Trump during the first 100 days of his administration and the launch pad for a larger, nationwide movement to fight fossil fuels at the local level.

The United States is in fact headed in the completely wrong direction on fossil fuels — pledging to revive the coal industry and pursuing multiple strategies to expand use of fossil fuels at home and abroad.

The fee being collected at the mine, well head or port of entry (where the imports are from nations that don't tax fossil fuels at source).

And it probably more than pay for itself it you take into account all of the externalities that are not priced into burning fossil fuels at this time.

Hansen describes it as a «flat, across - the - board rising fee on carbon emissions» that would be levied on fossil fuels at a domestic mine or port of entry.

This rate could speed up if we keep burning fossil fuels at our current pace, some experts say, causing sea levels to rise several meters over the next 50 to 150 years.

As shown in the chart above, the authors observed a decrease in the isotopes associated with fossil fuels at all latitudes beginning in 2006.

We are up against the world's largest corporations, who are attempting to extract, transport and burn fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, all as the climate crisis spins out of control.

Should we continue to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, we are likely to see the same temperature increase in the space of a few hundred years that took a few thousand years 55 million years ago.

This pipeline would deepen our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when scientists agree that we must transform our energy system to maintain the stability of our climate.

«It is undisputed that Defendants did not control the fossil fuels at the time they allegedly created the nuisance — i.e., when they were combusted — and thus can not be held liable...

(source; http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/) Shouldn't you be trying to convince the average American not to burn fossil fuels at a rate which is 4 times that of the average Chinese and 12 times that of the average Indian, instead of advising them to dismiss IPCC reports?

In essence you are telling your fellow citizens and mine (Canada; 17.3 tons p.c.) to ignore thousands of your fellow scientists who contribute to the IPCC and that we North Americans might as well keep on burning those fossil fuels at a vastly higher rate than any country in the world because the IPCC isn't 100 % certain that such action / inaction is causing global climate change!

The Government proposed taxing fossil fuels at rates that took into account of their average carbon content.

Al Gore has been accused of hypocrisy for talking the talk on climate change despite burning through fossil fuels at a rapid clip, but it turns out he's not alone.

One group warns that, if humans go on burning fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate, heatwave temperatures could reach an intolerable 55 °C in many parts of the globe, including some parts of continental Europe.

LONDON, 29 October, 2015 − A lethal combination of temperature and humidity may make some parts of the planet intolerable to human life before the end of the century − if we go on burning fossil fuels at the present rate.

Yet on the ground, significant momentum has been building to tackle fossil fuels at their source, by trying to block new production and exports, and change the economics of the industry.

Although global warming is driven by human behaviour — and in particular the prodigal burning of fossil fuels at an ever - accelerating rate to dump ever - greater quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — it is also influenced by natural climate rhythms.

Since the plaintiffs claimed that burning of fossil fuels puts deadly CO2 into the atmosphere, causing all their forecasted death & destruction, then why didn't the oil companies ask the judge for a restraining order to prevent the plaintiffs from burning any more fossil fuels at least until the case was settled one way or the other?

Continuing to burn fossil fuels at today's rates «would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice,» Hansen and his colleagues concluded.

EU countries have just nine more years of burning fossil fuels at the current rate to avoid a global temperature rise of 2 °C.

You probably wouldn't want to go near carbon capture storage for fossil fuels at all.

EU countries can afford just nine more years of burning gas and other fossil fuels at the current rate before they will have exhausted their share of the earth's remaining carbon budget for maximum temperature rises of 2 °C.

«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.

This development is absolutely crucial, since burning fossil fuels at the rate we are burning them is rapidly changing the climate in ways that seriously harm our quality of life.

We simply do not have low - carbon technologies today that can at large scale replace fossil fuels at a cost that any political economy in the world is willing to impose upon itself.

By fighting back against the expansion of fossil fuels at home, you'll help build momentum for a broader movement.

If we keep burning fossil fuels at our current rates, food may become harder and harder to grow in many places.

Hansen and his co-authors describe a world that may quickly start to spin out of control if humans keep burning fossil fuels at close to our current rate.

We're privileging fossil fuels at a time when we keep saying: renewable energy should compete in the open marketplace.

Hansen proposes a political policy of taxing fossil fuels at their source (extraction or import).

It takes a village to raise a child, but it takes an expensive - to - maintain global infrastructure to burn fossil fuels at the current rate.

Climate change is happening, being driven by the human combustion of fossil fuels at unprecedented rates for more than a century.

They are talking about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming, but include the sea level rise from all warming effects, most of which occured long before we were burning fossil fuels at anywhere near current rates.

New calculations by the author indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036, crossing a threshold that will harm human civilization.

This energy is mostly derived from the burning of fossil fuels at power plants.

These simple economic facts put the political backers of fossil fuels at a disadvantage on the issue of base economics.

The implication is that even though other teams have repeatedly warned that the world's reefs are in peril as the world warms because of ever - greater ratios of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as a consequence of human combustion of fossil fuels at a profligate rate, the world's great reefs may survive for perhaps another century, rather than perish within the next 50 years.

At the same time, U.S. government representatives are extolling the virtues of fossil fuels at the year's most important international climate talks.

The list comes two weeks after new research showed that EU countries can afford just nine more years of burning gas and other fossil fuels at the current rate before they will have exhausted their share of the Earth's remaining carbon budget for maximum temperature rises of 2 °C.

You are correct that nuclear is too expensive compared with fossil fuels at the moment.

If the world keeps burning fossil fuels at current rates, things will be worse, faster.

Last of all, there is the near certainty that global warming activists will continue to burn fossil fuels at an extremely above average rate.

WASHINGTON (Reuters)- The United States hopes to promote wider use of fossil fuels at a global meeting on climate change next week, a White House official said, reflecting the gaping divide between Washington and the rest of the world on the issue of global warming.

Why your insistence we rely on fossil fuels at all?