Sentences with phrase «fuel burning today»

«The legacy of our fossil fuel burning today is a hangover that could last for tens of thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years to come.»

That is what produced the fossil fuels we burn today.

Condider this:» The fossil fuels we burn today - coal, oil and gas took Mother Nature 500 million years to make by taking carbon dioxide out of the air and turning it into algae, plants, trees and critters that ultimately became coal, crude oil and natural gas.»

Not exact matches

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.

Howie Hawkins, the recent Green Party candidate for Governor, called today upon Governor Cuomo to acknowledge the climate change is being caused by human activity, starting with the burning of fossil fuels.

Rock to Liquid Jet aircraft today typically burn kerosene, an energy - dense hydrocarbon fuel that delivers as much as 48 megajoules per kilogram (20,700 British thermal units per pound), allowing for long - distance travel.

Today, more than 100 years after Huxley, teams of researchers are still unraveling the role phytoplankton play in creating the air we breathe, the food we eat, the fuel we burn, even the ground we walk on.

«Today atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are implicated in climate change, and carbon sequestered in forest biomass reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But future aircraft designs routinely flying during the 2030's may look very different from today's airliners in order to deliver on the promises of reduced fuel burn, noise and emissions.

Many skyscrapers — and even homes — have such fuel cells today, but the prototype cars on the road — ranging from GM's fuel cell Chevy Equinox to BMW's hydrogen - burning 7 Series sedan — have proved too expensive so far to fulfill the Bush administration's dreams of a hydrogen car economy.

Now, locked in limestone that was formed in shallow seawater offshore of the supercontinent Pangaea, scientists have found an isotopic signal to support a sharp drop in pH. The catastrophe holds a cautionary lesson: Due to the burning of fossil fuels, today's oceans are acidifying at an even faster rate than they were at the time of the extinctions, although it hasn't yet persisted nearly as long.

That's worrisome because CO2 levels are rising today — thanks to the burning of fossil fuels — and pushing down seawater pH, researchers report online June 8 in Geology.

And, if it were found in large enough quantities, some experts speculate that it could be used as a clean - burning substitute for fossil fuels today because it gives off high amounts of energy when burned but emits only water, not carbon.

Today's flight represents its efforts to develop alternative jet fuel derived from post-harvest forestry material that is often burned after timber harvest.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from ~ 280 ppm during pre-industrial times to 407 ppm today as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation and the removal of other habitats that sequester carbon.

(A similar trend is happening today as seawater soaks up carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.)

The CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels today will hang around for centuries, building up over time and continuing to warm the planet.

Back in the 1890s, that of course represented a tiny fraction of the fossil fuels that we burn today; but what, they asked themselves, might happen if mankind burnt ever - increasing amounts over many centuries?

Today, most people are burning glucose as their primary fuel, thanks to an overabundance of sugar and processed grains in the diet and a deficiency in healthy fats.

The rise of industrial civilization and the associated burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic influence has driven the level of CO2 upwards to 385 ppm today, and climbing by a few ppm each year.

[And just to make the point one more time: The greater fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere today is from fossil fuel burning (by rich countries), not deforestation - eric]

[UPDATED 6/23, 9:30 a.m.] Twenty years ago today, James E. Hansen testified before the Senate Energy Committee — in a room kept intentionally warm by committee staff — that the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests was already perceptibly influencing Earth's climate.

Thus whether we burn a fuel and release the CO2 today or next year does not matter all that much with respect to the end result.

Most of the increase of CO2 in the air today, relative to preindustrial times, is due to burning of fossil fuels.

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).

The vast majority of energy we use today is derived from the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, or coal.

Today, science tells us that we have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere by 40 % since 1880 by burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, for our energy needs.

The overwhelming volume of energy consumed today comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

``... the oceans are 30 percent more acidic today than they were during pre-industrial times and, if we continue burning fossil fuels as we are now, we will double the ocean's acidity by the end of the century.»

A nice atmospheric pressure passive safe high temperature reactor that can burn used fuel in the future, is much better than fielding a complex PWR today.

I see the burning of fossil fuels as the handmaiden of human betterment down the ages, and before I see it denied to today's developing populations and to future generations, I want to see proper scientific evidence.

Part I: Planning Introduction In his book Reinventing Fire, Amory Lovins realistically shows how the U.S. could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels by 2050 using the technologies that are available today.

We could make that same decision today to switch from burning heavy polluting fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, to cleaner energy sources, like solar & wind.

Meanwhile, IRENA notes that the ongoing subsidising of fossil fuels in many countries, combined with the failure so far for a carbon price to account for the true cost of burning fossil fuels, means «today's markets are distorted».

In his book Reinventing Fire, Amory Lovins realistically shows how the U.S. could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels by 2050 using the technologies that are available today.

Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, said that similar lawsuits faltered a decade ago because the evidence linking heat waves and flooding back to burning fossil fuels wasn't as robust as it is today.

«The burning of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere, which has warmed to levels that can not be explained by natural variability, scientists say,» USA Today reports.

Meanwhile, USA Today also cited Shepherd, who stated that daily or weekly weather patterns «say nothing about longer term climate change,» something one never hears during the summer months when news outlets are falling over themselves to point to «yet another» indication that burning fossil fuels is making the earth a hotter place.

USA Today: In a bit of encouraging climate news, the U.S. government reported Monday that U.S. emissions of heat - trapping greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels were lower last year than at any time since 1994.

The Great Dying of the Permian Extinction 200 million years ago should be a warning to anyone still enamored with the notion that today's terrifying fossil fuel burning results in any future that is not horrible, wretched, bleak.

Commenting on agreements reached on the Internal Electricity regulation, Molly Walsh said «Today EU governments have made the fossil fuel industry proud, by locking us into decades more of burning fossil fuels.

«The World Bank itself has laid out a stark picture of what a world with four degrees of warming looks like, yet it continues to pump billions into projects exploring for new fossil fuel resources that must not be burned in any reasonably safe climate scenario,» said Elizabeth Bast, Managing Director of Oil Change International and co-author of today's analysis.

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

Also in 2015, Xiaochun Zhang and I published a paper pointing out that, over the several hundred thousands of years that today's CO2 emissions from fossil - fuel burning will perturb atmospheric content, the radiative forcing from that CO2 will warm the Earth more than 100,000 times more than the direct thermal emissions from the combustion of fossil fuel.

The question is «what would have happened if the industrial revolution had not happened and we had not burnt all those fossil fuels» If the answer is that CO2 concentrations would be the same as they are today then you have to explain why 2 and 3 are related to 1.

The largest climate forcing today, i.e. the greatest imposed perturbation of the planet's energy balance [1,2], is the human - made increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), especially CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

Every wealthy powerful person today has very little ability to claim that they were unaware that it was unacceptable to try to get personal benefit from burning fossil fuels.

In fact, if humankind was really as dumb as the fans of DPS would have us believe, we wouldn't be around today to hear their doomsaying, because Homo sapiens would have been wiped out during vastly larger environmental swings (in and out of ice ages, for example) in our past, than those expected as a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels to produce the energy that powers our world — a world in which the human life expectancy, perhaps the best measure of our level of «dumbness» or «smartness» — has more than doubled over the last century and continues to grow ever longer.

The main point of the post is that regardless whether climate change can be linked to human influences, the lazy thinking that all we need to do to solve all our problems is stop burning fossil fuels is causing us to miss opportunties and direct our efforts away from the real causes of today's problems.

And if fossil fuel burning is eliminated today, we can expect * more * wars over artificially scarce energy resources and with countries not willing to play ball.