Sentences with phrase «fuel burning seems»
And certainly 40 years of open fossil fuel burning seems like no minor matter.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Not exact matches
The government mandated filter mufflers for diesel trucks on state jobs then exempted themselves it seems the mufflers reduced power by at least a third and made the trucks burn twice the fuel.
Hydrogen seems to be an excellent and clean energy vector, and catalysis is expected to be at the core of the new developing technologies for the production, storage, and burning of hydrogen in fuel cells.
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.
The burning of fossil fuels is altering the ratio of carbon in the atmosphere, which may cause objects tested in the coming decades to seem hundreds or thousands of years older than they actually are, according a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Given the rapid rise in recent decades, the answer seems to be «pretty large,» but emissions from the burning of fossil fuels may only be part of the human contribution.
So degenerative disease seemed to stem in part from our own metabolic function: Your mitochondria «burned» fuel, emitted this toxic exhaust, and inadvertently set the limits on your existence.
Mice given astaxanthin were found to have accelerated body fat reduction (i.e., «fat burning») when combined with exercise, as compared to exercise alone in a 2007 study by Aoi et al. 9 Aoi reports the carotenoid seems to exert this effect by protecting the function of a lipid transport enzyme on the membrane of mitochondria that «fuels» energy production.
Reliable and long - lasting diesel powered heavy trucks move our goods from coast to coast and diesel propelled cars offer better fuel efficiency ratings than those of gasoline powered vehicles, still American consumers seem hesitant to purchase these clean burning and economical cars as their primary source of transportation.
The sentiment that day, it seemed, was that, with a decision on health care reform near and a symbol of the dangers of fossil fuels burning in the Gulf, our representatives would finally be forced to address the critical issues of energy and environmental policy.
Hank (356), I haven't yet read the paper but a couple of thoughts from your excerpt don't seem intuitively obvious: 1) why would CO2 coming from burning fossil fuel be more forcing than CO2 from any other source.
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.
Peter A. Shulman, a historian and author of «Coal and Empire,» tweeted an image of an article from the May 12, 1912, edition of The Daily Picayune * newspaper in New Orleans that seems to imply more of a toxic, than climatic, impact from the buildup of carbon dioxide through fuel burning and the loss of trees to sop up the gas:
And if the climate movement can keep pressuring the the government, banks and universities to invest in the future and divest from fossil fuels, it seems inevitable that we'll be burning less coal in the coming years, whether President Obama has officially waged a War on Coal or not.
High though this may seem, it does not come close to covering all the indirect costs of burning fossil fuels.
From the data in this post it seems like uncontrolled fossil fuel burning is actually a net global coolant due to the sulfates, so it seems that this would act as a break on CO2 based warming effects.
Powering cars with corn and burning wood to make electricity might seem like a way to lessen dependence on fossil fuels and help solve the climate crisis.
Even short of that ideal, burning biofuel or biomass that has sequestered a significant part of the CO2 emitted in combustion might seem preferable to burning fossil fuels.
«It seems like we're just charging ahead, burning any and every fossil fuel,» Hansen told reporters.
Improved cooking stoves (ICS) have been developed worldwide as an alternative household fuel burning device, as well as a * climate change mitigation *» Under the criteria described in their methods, the inclusion and categorisation seems fair enough to me.
It is completely plausible that by burning fossil fuels we accelerate the amount of co2 increase and that that could have an impact on our climate by warming it up — in particular (and people seem to forget this) by warming it and changing our climate faster than we can adapt.
Given that fossil fuel reserves already exceed the global carbon budget, it seems reasonable to start assuming not all of them will be burnt.»
There doesn't seem to be any way to get around the fact that we'll have to voluntarily stop burning fossil fuels within the next few decades if we want to aim for the lower end of possible warming scenarios.
It seems as if orthodox environmentalists prefer burning wood or biomass versus fossil fuels.
You seem to agree with me that we should be building new, safe nukes that can burn old waste as fuel, but you need to give your fellow lefties a kick up the backside and tell them to wake up ASAP.
High though this may seem, it does not come close to covering the indirect costs of burning fossil fuels.
Even if REC isn't coordinating directly with these groups, the co-op seems to have internalized their way of thinking about the need to fight homeowner solar so utilities can keep burning fossil fuel.
If you plot average annual temperatures on Earth, solar cycles and mankind's supposed most significant climate altering activity, the burning of fossil fuels, the solar cycles and temperatures match and the use of fossil fuels seems to be unrelated.
The fossil fuel industry seems to be moving on to their last public relations stand: «Yes, human beings are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels — but that will be a good thing!».
Knowing all we do about the damage wrought by burning fossil fuels — both to our immediate health and to the long - term viability of our habitat — it would seem an act of obscene, destructive decadence.
All of that is to say that research should certainly continue into developing CCS, but all too often the promise of it seems to be used by fossil fuel producers to justify continued burning of dirty fuels.
The fact that air pollution from the burning of coal kills millions of people each year seems not to bother them, nor does the climate change damage from the burning of fossil fuels.
Ignoring the mountains of evidence showing that the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels is causing unnatural levels of heat trapping gas in our atmosphere seems insane at this point, and we know that those who do are likely driven by ideology, their bank account or an overly active conspiratorial mind.
It might seem counter-intuitive for an investor to sell their fossil fuel stocks when most people are still driving internal combustion cars and burning fossil fuels every day.