Sentences with phrase «further reduce the climate change»

Not exact matches

And finally, Tim McMillan, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who said: ``... the province's climate strategy may allow our sector to invest more aggressively in technologies to further reduce per barrel emissions in our sector and do our part to tackle climate change.

COMPANIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE: TAKING ACTION TO THE NEXT LEVEL There's a lot of talk in the C suite about how to reduce waste, boost energy efficiency and embrace renewables, but progress so far has been scattershot.

Going vegan is one of the most significant things that you can do to help combat climate change and reduce further damage to the natural world.

De Blasio has sought to position New York City as a leader in the fight against climate change, but even as he has committed to quickly come up with an aggressive plan to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, the agency that is supposed to lead that effort is in flux.

«These new standards will reduce pollution, further encourage the development of renewable resources and support this state's efforts to combat climate change,» the governor said in a statement.

In a further setback to reducing U.S. carbon emissions, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency has proposed lowering the U.S. government's «social cost» of carbon, or the estimated cost of sea - level rise, lower crop yields, and other climate - change related economic damages, from $ 42 per ton by 2020 to a low of $ 1 per ton.

So far, climate change policies on the tropics have effectively been focusing on reducing carbon emissions from deforestation only, not accounting for emissions coming from forest degradation.

As climate change causes the Barents Sea to grow warmer, for some years now other fish species like capelin and Atlantic cod have moved further northward, creating new competition that could reduce the polar cod population.

The researchers further recommend that, given that many human influences are driving both climate change and biodiversity loss, conservationists should aim for win - win solutions such as the United Nations program REDD + (an extension of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation programme)-- an initiative that protects forests while also creating benefits for local communities and biodiversity.

The scientists also acknowledged that long - term adaptation to climate change can greatly reduce impacts, but further research and evaluation is required to realise the potential of adaptation.

Further, harvest practices have shifted the genetic makeup of some forests, potentially reducing their resilience to climate change (see Genetics sidebar).

The model found that long - term, less easily reversed behavioral changes, such as insulating homes or purchasing hybrid cars, had by far the most impact in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and thus reducing climate change, versus more short - term adjustments, such as adjusting thermostats or driving fewer miles.

It informs us about the global temperature change «in the pipeline» without further change of climate forcings and it defines how much greenhouse gases must be reduced to restore Earth's energy balance, which, at least to a good approximation, must be the requirement for stabilizing global climate.

More small improvements include a one - piece welded exhaust system that uses one big muffler branching into two tailpipes to reduce squeaks and rattles; self - adjusting clutch linkage; headlights that project a beam that is wider near the car and extends 10 percent farther down the road; changes to the climate - control system that result in faster heating and more durable air conditioning; new 16 - inch aluminum wheels; and a larger torque converter on the V - 8 automatic.

I am very skeptical that on a global population level, humans will bother to do anything other than lip service when it comes to addressing climate change and the changes to our lifestyle required to significantly reduce our emissions, until it is far too late.

A United Nations report has once again stressed that the key to increasing food production so that the world's coming nine billion people can be fed without increasing climate change and further reducing biodiversity, is small - scale sustainable

The 3.9 °C (7.0 °F) warming by 2100 is an improvement of 0.9 °C (1.6 °F) over the business as usual increase of 4.8 ° C (8.6 °F), but falls far short of the 2 °C (3.6 °F) target that has been widely adopted and that would reduce the risks of the most serious impacts of climate change.

By far the best way to deal with climate change would be to follow Fuhr and Hallstrom's recommendation «to reduce emissions fast, while developing alternative energy sources that allow us to leave fossil fuels in the ground.»

Or even worse, what happens if it turns out that we need to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere even further than we thought to avoid dangerous climate change?

Clearly, further research into the carbon cycle will be essential to reduce the level of uncertainty about the climate system's response to CO2 emissions.For further reading: R. T. Watson et al.: «Green - house gases and aero - sols» in Houghton et al., «Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assess - ment», Cambridge climate system's response to CO2 emissions.For further reading: R. T. Watson et al.: «Green - house gases and aero - sols» in Houghton et al., «Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assess - ment», Cambridge Climate Change, the IPCC Scientific Assess - ment», Cambridge (1990).

As far back as 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) committed to the principle of «common but differentiated responsibilities», in which countries have a common responsibility in reducing GHG emissions, but historic emissions and differences in current development levels mean that countries have different levels of emissions reduction obligations9.

The full text of this Paris Agreement goes even further, with the parties agreeing «to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.»

The US obligation to reduce its emissions is terminated only when it is below levels required by fair global allocations that will prevent dangerous climate change although even in this case an argument can be made that any nation that could reduce emissions further should do so to avoid catastrophic harm to others.

At the same time, the global climate change mitigation effort will reduce the CO2 emissions per unit of electricity and steel inputs, further limiting life - cycle greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2018 strategy is far more focused on the nexus of climate change and energy, offering multiple approaches for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and its cascading impacts, such as sea - level rise.

Permafrost - borne diseases are only one threat of climate change, and scientists warn that further abrupt changes are possible (if not likely) unless greenhouse gas emissions are quickly reduced.

(Sec. 265) Authorizes the Secretary to establish a research program to: (1) identify the factors affecting consumer actions to conserve energy and make improvements in energy efficiency; and (2) make grants to institutions of higher education to study the effects of consumer behavior on total energy use, the potential energy savings from changes in consumption habits, the ability to reduce GHG emissions through changes in energy consumption habits, increasing public awareness of federal climate adaptation and mitigation programs, and the potential for alterations in consumer behavior to further American energy independence.

By far the most frequent arguments made in opposition to climate change policies are economic predictions of various kinds such as claims that proposed climate change legislation will destroy jobs, reduce GDP, damage US businesses such as the coal and petroleum industries, or increase the cost of fuel.

But international commitments to reducing carbon emissions still fall far short of what is needed to limit dangerous climate change.

Further, the Governor's Clean Energy Standard to get 50 percent of New York's electricity from renewables by 2030 is the most comprehensive and ambitious mandate in the state's history to fight climate change, reduce harmful air pollution, and ensure a diverse and reliable energy supply at affordable prices.

As a result there is a huge gap between national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions that have been made thus far under the UNFCCC and global ghg emissions reductions that are necessary to limit warming to 2 oC, a warming limit that has been agreed to by the international community as necessary to prevent very dangerous climate change.

Through the program the Secretary will make grants to public and private institutions of higher education to study the effects of consumer behavior on total energy use; potential energy savings from changes in consumption habits; the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through changes in energy consumption habits; increase public awareness of Federal climate adaptation and mitigation programs; and the potential for alterations in consumer behavior to further American energy independence.

The agreement also set the stage for further work to resolve issues around financing to help developing and vulnerable countries become more resilient to climate change impacts and reduce their own emissions.

Because any further delay will make the climate change threat worse, US politicians have a duty to support policies that will reduce the threat of climate unless they can produce strong scientific evidence that has been fully vetted by respectable scientific institutions that climate change is not the threat entailed by the scientific consensus view.

The message of the latest IPCC report is clear: Climate change is real and caused by humans, and we will see far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts if we do not reduce global carbon emissions.

The impacts of anthropogenic climate change so far include decreased ocean productivity, altered food web dynamics, reduced abundance of habitat - forming species, shifting species distributions, and a greater incidence of disease.

Thawing permafrost also delivers organic - rich soils to lake bottoms, where decomposition in the absence of oxygen releases additional methane.116 Extensive wildfires also release carbon that contributes to climate warming.107, 117,118 The capacity of the Yukon River Basin in Alaska and adjacent Canada to store carbon has been substantially weakened since the 1960s by the combination of warming and thawing of permafrost and by increased wildfire.119 Expansion of tall shrubs and trees into tundra makes the surface darker and rougher, increasing absorption of the sun's energy and further contributing to warming.120 This warming is likely stronger than the potential cooling effects of increased carbon dioxide uptake associated with tree and shrub expansion.121 The shorter snow - covered seasons in Alaska further increase energy absorption by the land surface, an effect only slightly offset by the reduced energy absorption of highly reflective post-fire snow - covered landscapes.121 This spectrum of changes in Alaskan and other high - latitude terrestrial ecosystems jeopardizes efforts by society to use ecosystem carbon management to offset fossil fuel emissions.94, 95,96

Reducing global warming by 0.5 °C may not sound like much, but when it comes to climate change, every tenth of a degree matters, and slowing near - term warming is particularly important to avoid triggering feedback loops that could accelerate further warming.

Climate change caused by the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasses is further reducing the earth's capacity to feed itself, through the expansion of drought zones, rising sea levels and the shrinkage of glacier - fed rivers.

«Additional research addressing those gaps would further reduce uncertainties and thus facilitate decision - making related to mitigation of climate change,» says the group's summary for policymakers.

«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 industriaClimate 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 industriaclimate 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 industriaclimate; (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 industriaclimate 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.

It informs us about the global temperature change «in the pipeline» without further change of climate forcings and it defines how much greenhouse gases must be reduced to restore Earth's energy balance, which, at least to a good approximation, must be the requirement for stabilizing global climate.

Although the zones are a natural phenomenon, climate change is likely to reduce oxygen levels further.

A change in ocean heat content can also alter patterns of ocean circulation, which can have far - reaching effects on global climate conditions, including changes to the outcome and pattern of meteorological events such as tropical storms, and also temperatures in the northern Atlantic region, which are strongly influenced by currents that may be substantially reduced with CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

As announced by the Prime Minister in September, asking the Committee on Climate Change to report on whether the Government's target to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60 percent by 2050 should be strengthened further;

Upon initial review, the CIS found funds classified as climate ODA from Belgium going to a «Love movie festival», or ODA coming from Greece going to a «Green Parliament contribution to UNICEF telemarathon», or Switzerland allocating funds for «Earthquake safety», none of which seem to have anything to do with mitigation or adaptation, unless the «love movie festival» reduced the vulnerability of a country to the impacts of climate change by further expanding their emotional depth.

Lindzen's ninth paragraph: «Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change.

Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes.

This has to be addressed in the context of climate change, which is projected to further reduce productivity and production stability, leading to food insecurity.

Even worse, climate models seemingly underestimate how much precipitation has changed already — further reducing confidence in their ability to project future changes.