Sentences with phrase «fuel reserves if»

They too argued that the world can consume no more than 20 % of known fossil fuel reserves if mankind is to survive which meant the reserves being carried on the books of Big Fossil were dangerously sub-prime.

Not exact matches

If the world's governments fulfil their pledges to tackle climate change by cutting carbon emissions, many fossil fuel reserves would have to be kept in the ground, potentially wasting trillions of investors» money.

Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of Canada who now heads up the Bank of England, legitimized the concept of the carbon bubble by confirming that the «vast majority of [fossil fuel] reserves are unburnable» if we are to avoid dangerous climate disruption.

The sponsors withdrew the resolution after the company agreed to report on how much of its oil and gas reserves would become unsellable — or stranded — if a global treaty decreased fossil fuel demand.

It has been estimated that, if the whole world enjoyed a standard of living and energy consumption equal to the US average, the world's fossil fuel reserves would last only 20 years.

If we limit global warming to 2 degrees through government regulation and cheap and abundant clean energy, this essentially means roughly 80 % of fossil fuels have to stay in the ground, devaluing these reserves.

«Robert Halfon's debate on fuel prices highlights a growing problem in the Chamber Main John Baron MP says Bundesbank should use its # 130 billion of gold reserves if Germany wants to save $ uro»

Weaning US power plants off the dirtiest fuel will count for little if Wyoming and Montana's huge reserves are shipped to Asia

McKibben [255], published in a popular magazine, uses quantitative results of M2009 to conclude that most remaining fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground, if global warming this century is to be kept below 2 °C.

If the immune cells themselves lack glutamine to make the necessary repairs, they will find another source in another place.Since we already concluded that the body's reserves of glutamine are found in your muscles, then your muscles will be the first thing being broken down when the immune system is in search of fuel.

Your body will use fat reserves for fuel if needed.

If your training is constantly redlining this energy pathway and the tank is simply on empty your body has no choice but to come up with a means of producing glucose to fuel those activities, as well as desperately try to restock the glycogen reserves.

Don't calorie count or skimp if you're an exerciser... Your body needs the fuel in order to have the reserves to properly produce sex and stress hormones, among other things!

So don't panic, if you decide to skip breakfast, you have plenty of fuel reserves to cover you.

If your body does not have enough fuel it will go into starvation mode, once it has burnt the fat reserves it will then start to use lean tissue and muscle this is what is know as starvation mode and is not something you want your body to do so make sure you eat a healthy balanced diet.

However, it is important to keep in mind that we might easily more than double it if we really don't make much effort to cut back (I think the current estimated reserves of fossil fuels would increase CO2 by a factor of like 5 or 10, which would mean a warming of roughly 2 - 3 times the climate sensitivity for doubling CO2 [because of the logarithmic dependence of the resulting warming to CO2 levels]-RRB-... and CO2 levels may be able to fall short of doubling if we really make a very strong effort to reduce emissions.

Regardless of reserve and resource uncertainties, we know there are enough fossil fuels to destroy the planet as we know it, if their CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

Even after decades of increasingly dire warnings, the US has still not passed comprehensive federal legislation to combat global warming; Canada has abandoned past pledges in order to exploit its emissions - heavy tar sands; China continues to depend on coal for its energy production; Indonesia's effort to stem widespread deforestation is facing stiff resistance from industry; Europe is mulling pulling back on its more ambitious cuts if other nations do not join it; northern nations are scrambling to exploit the melting Arctic for untapped oil and gas reserves; and fossil fuels continue to be subsidized worldwide to the tune of $ 400 billion.

The new IPCC report shows that we must keep roughly 80 - to - 95 % of proven reserves of fossil fuels in the ground if we want a decent shot at avoiding catastrophe.

He talks about monetary values of the reserves being written off, as if the only cost will be to Exxon (and who cares about Exxon), but that fuel has real value to billions of people — so much so that every time prices tick up a tad, Exxon gets hauled in front of Congress to prove its not somehow holding back production.

610 ppm was the supposed level we reach if we burned all the fossil fuel reserves, which is also in dispute.

As Mr. Gore interprets it, «at least two - thirds of fossil fuel reserves will not be monetized if we are to stay below 2 ° of warming.»

If global warming accelerates, Schneiderman's logic goes, then Exxon would be stuck with fossil fuel reserves rendered worthless by future regulations or a concomitant reduced demand for oil.

The problem is, the total known fossil fuel reserves being held would release 2,860 GtCO2 into the atmosphere if burned.

This whole house of cards is kept together by the magic powers of Mammon, I suspect, as every aspect of it is highly dubious and afflicted by vast ignorance, starting with the carbon cycle, sinks, our questionable ability to even accomplish a doubling any time soon in view of current fossil fuel reserves, the actual effect if any of the demonized molecule (this engenders the most disparate and esoteric theoretizing,) which effect apparently can not or will not be empirically verified, and so on.

An international agreement to place caps on existing fossil fuel reserves and lock newly discovered ones is an agreement I am sure the world could largely come to, especially if done in stages.

Such a transition would save $ 1.8 trillion over the next two decades, says a study by the Climate Policy Initiative, which also found that governments and taxpayers will bear the greatest financial risk if fossil fuel reserves are stranded underground.

That implies if there is more than that [in fossil fuel reserves], that you leave some of that carbon in the ground.»

Research shows that a large portion of the world's fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground if we are to avert the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

Methane and co2 levels have been many times higher in the past and even if the entirety of the Worlds know fossil fuel reserves where released into the atmosphere we still would not get back to those levels.

The article ends: «We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half - century... if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long - term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth's reserves of fossil fuels».

But what would be the implication of building, or not building, the KXL pipeline if the U.S. were committed to keeping as much as 80 percent of current fossil fuel reserves in the ground?

If we burn just 60 % of current global reserves of fossil fuels, we produce two degrees of warming (3).

If all known fossil fuel reserves are used up, average global temperatures will rise by at least 10 degrees Celsius, a new study revealed.

Here's a good move on Exxon's part - revealing what their exposure is if 80 % of their fossil fuel reserves end up staying in the ground:

The argument for CCS is that if we can capture and sequester the emissions from these fossil fuel reserves, then we can tap them; we can deal with the climate crisis yet avoid these assets being stranded.

McKibben [255], published in a popular magazine, uses quantitative results of M2009 to conclude that most remaining fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground, if global warming this century is to be kept below 2 °C.

A recent estimate indicates that if we burn all the remaining known fossil fuel reserves the Antarctic ice sheet will essentially melt raising the oceans by 60 meters.

According to Carbon Tracker (PDF), there is a potential that 80 percent of the world's carbon reserves will become unburnable, which — if this situations holds true — would result in a $ 20 trillion write - off in losses by fossil fuel companies.

The black line is the trajectory oil and gas production would follow if we stopped exploring for and developing new fossil fuel reserves today.

The analysis finds that expanding fossil fuel reserves does even more damage than putting the global climate in danger; exploration financing by the World Bank risks locking developing countries into loan commitments for resources that will likely become stranded assets if policies are implemented to meet agreed climate goals.

As I pointed out in these pages last summer, the world's fossil - fuel companies, even before these new finds, had five times more carbon in their reserves than we could burn if we hope to stay below a two - degreeCelsius rise in global temperatures.

The outfit does not just argue that such investments are immoral, but also that they are risky (as we wrote last week, if governments were determined to implement their climate policies, a lot of energy firms fossil - fuel reserves, on which their stock valuations hinge, would have to be left in the ground).

Second, as the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change points out, divesting from the fossil - fuel industry acknowledges the fact that the majority of known fossil - fuel reserves must be left unburned if we are to avoid catastrophic climate disruption.

McQuaig's comments differed little from those of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney or the World Bank or the International Energy Agency — all have publicly acknowledged that two - thirds of the world's known reserves of fossil fuels will have to be left undeveloped if humanity has a fighting chance against climate change.

Such an analysis does not even take into account the long - term investment implications of the argument that if climate change is to be limited to a global increase in temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius, no more than 20 percent of all fossil fuel reserves accounted for at present can be burned.

In fact, a new statement released by leading scientists suggests that nearly three - quarters of fossil fuel reserves — especially coal — must remain unused if the world is to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.

Finally, Sweeney states that «If either bill became law, it would amount to a declaration of war on fossil - fuel interests, because much of the present - day stock market value of coal, oil, and gas companies is based on their below - the - ground reserves.»

IEA: «No more than one - third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2 °C goal, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed.»

The research showed that the untapped reserves of coal, oil, and gas identified by the world's fossil fuel industry contained five times more carbon than we can burn if we want to keep from raising the planet's temperature by more than two degrees Celsius.