Sentences with phrase «further than the fossil fuel»

The energy debate often doesn't stretch much further than fossil fuels and nuclear power, but there are a host of alternative technologies in the pipeline.

The company went further than the fossil fuel companies and conservative groups that merely promoted doubt about the risks of climate change, asserting that carbon emissions were beneficial.

The climate movement knows this — look no further than fossil fuel infrastructure resistance around the world, with some communities that have been standing up to the sector for decades.

Not exact matches

«Dominion's proposal to lock Virginians into decades of further dependence on harmful fossil fuels looks better suited for 1998 than 2018,» Kate Addleson, director of the Sierra Club Virginia Chapter, said in a statement.

We're at a line in the sand here, where we can continue blindly marching over the cliff, or we can get a grip: ramp down fossil fuel use immediately, get an economic system geared to fixing up the mess we've made instead of enriching the few who already have far more than enough, nourish an ideology of cooperation instead of competition, and put the technology to more intelligent uses than convenience and mindless diversion.

Although the small, labor - intensive factories here envisioned are far more efficient than individual producers, they can become still more efficient when they employ fossil fuel energy and enlarge their production.

It is far more interested in speaking about fossil fuels than the importance of traditional marriage and the procreation of children.

Yes it's a far stretch from UFO's to an enlightened civilization, but those who are visiting are surely more sane than this planet of nations competing for resources, polluting the water and land while still using fossil fuels, fighting in «God's» name...

More than anything else, fossil fuel has allowed us to stop being neighbors to each other, both literally — we move ever farther into ever emptier suburbs — and figuratively — we depend less and less on each other for anything real.

Yes, households are being asked to contribute to the cost of developing green energy — but contrary to the claims of some think tanks and commentators, this will be far less than the cost of staying hooked on fossil fuels.

It's that the costs of using renewable energy are still far greater than the cost of using fossil fuel in the vast majority of applications...

A new renewable plant costs far more than a fossil fuel plant whose cost was amortized years ago.

A report in Nature stated that in some cases the escape of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, «could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.»

Moreover, in those cases, the gap between the leading - edge technologies and the competitors trying to catch up is on aggregate twice as great for the fossil - fuel firms than the clean - technology firms; that is, the dirty energy companies are generally farther ahead of the other firms in their fields.

Simon Fraser University scientist Jonathan Moore has authored new research suggesting that a proposed controversial terminal to load fossil fuels in the Skeena River estuary has more far - reaching risks than previously recognized.

The earths heat is just a few KM's further down than coal and oil, does nt the use of fossil fuels seem stupid by comparison?

Realistic large - scale solar panel coverage could cause less than half a degree of local warming, far less than the several degrees in global temperature rise predicted over the next century if we keep burning fossil fuels.

The study showed that more than a century of fossil fuel burning, deforestation and farming has helped push the American West into an explosive new wildfire regime, and the findings suggest far worse could be ahead.

In a letter being delivered to the White House on Thursday, nearly 400 scientists from more than a dozen countries are urging President Obama to stop future oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean because of the significant environmental and climate risks associated with further fossil fuels exploration there.

Further, it is not obvious to us that there are physical or economic limitations that prohibit fossil fuel emission targets far lower than 1000 GtC, even targets closer to 500 GtC.

Essentially it's a hugely complicated subject which requires far more space than this to discuss — but ultimately, electric cars are cleaner than fossil - fueled ones (before you even consider non-CO2 emissions).

Simply moving production of goods to countries much further than where the demand is only acts to increase the need to transport them a longer distance — which in turn also burns more fossil fuels.

We have been consuming natural capital far faster than it regenerates, whether it's fossil fuels, fish, forests, wetlands, or the capacity of the oceans and other sinks to take up greenhouse gases.

The problem is that building momentum for the level of technological, financial and social innovation required to speed the move away from fossil fuels requires far more than a short - term shot of offerings for breakthrough research and rebates for attic insulation and fireplace inserts (one of which we are about to utilize).

What about hydropower, which is billed as a sustainable form of electricity generation because it produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels?

McCain is far more honest than any leading Republican in this regard, but his party is of course joined at the hip with fossil fuel interests.

-- Every human appears to have 10, 20 or more horses yoked with him (the primemovers that burn fossil fuels and make our current lives comfortable) which consume oxygen and spew out far more carbon - dioxide than man would do alone.

While the climate situation is far worse than most people think, the options for quickly phasing out fossil fuel and nuclear energy and replacing them with clean renewable energy sources are much better than most people think.

The fossil fuel companies control (with leases or direct ownership) far more carbon than all the farmers, loggers, or plankton - fertilizers ever will.

The potential for efficiency remains enormous, and given the likely improvements in technology and changes in societal norms over the next century which it will take us to do the right thing, we are likely to be able to cut fossil fuel use further than most people imagine possible, even if renewables don't become commercially competitive (which wind is already, and solar is in certain situations).

A world with 6.7 billion people, a third of whom cook on dung or firewood and the rest depending on fossil fuels, needs far more energy options than it currently has, almost everyone agrees.

Moving on to assess the influence of fossil fuel emissions during this same period, it's important to stress that literally all investigators acknowledge that both the level of AGW and the rate of increase were far less at that time than what we see in the latter part of the century.

Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere.

Nader said, «We do not need nuclear power... We have a far greater amount of fossil fuels in this country than we're owning up to... the tar sands... oil out of shale... methane in coal beds...» Sierra Club consultant Amory Lovins said, «Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy with only a temporary and modest (less than twofold at peak) expansion of mining.»

The Way Forward As China seeks a cleaner, softer path of development, renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal are attractive not only because of their lower carbon emissions profiles, but because they use far less water than their fossil fuel counterparts.

(10/05/2011) In 2009, G20 nations committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term, yet are further away today than they were two years ago from keeping the pledge.

Backers of plug - in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil.

So, when we talk about «more expensive energy» like wind and solar, what we are actually saying is that far more energy is consumed in making that energy to the supplier than for fossil fuels.

Nuclear defenders are calling for keeping things in perspective — fossil fuels, they point out, have many more costs and risks associated with them than nuclear power; and newer generation reactor designs are far safer than those built in Japan many decades ago (a number of US plants from the same era have the same or similar designs).

For example, the «400 ppm CO2 - e» emissions pathway in the Knopf et al. study has cumulative fossil fuel emissions of about 1100 gigatonnes from 2000 to 2050, far higher than the cumulative emissions in our 350 ppm pathway.

After dismissing the article as «reactionary, evidence - free journalism which provides a small part of a whole picture, thereby giving the wrong view», she makes her argument that the fossil fuel lobby — the Black Fog — is far more extended into policymaking than the Green Blob is.

The evidence for the dangers of smoking cigarettes is FAR, FAR, FAR more powerful than the evidence for human beings causing dangers to the planet via fossil fuel burning.

Nuclear power could be far cheaper than fossil fuels for electricity generation if we removed the impediments.

An epilogue that is far longer than all but one other chapter — material that might have been incorporated effectively in earlier sections that discussed the same topics — arrives at the unexceptionable conclusion that «Americans must pull together as one» in order to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.

Who is more likely to have an agenda — a scientist who actively chose to enter a career that produces far less income than someone who chose instead to use their considerable intellect to game the system on Wall Street, or a billionaire with ties to the fossil fuel industry?

To clarify, the context of the above snip had to do with state spending on education and social safety net programs, but that «you and me» reference covers far more ground than that, considering the Koch brothers» all - in approach to their fossil fuel holdings.

The analyses published in Nordhaus (2008)[2] show the «cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels» policy (called «Low - cost backstop policy») is far better than the «Optimal carbon price» policy.

This hurdle is rapidly shifting now that solar is more widely seen as a wise financial investment, in addition to being far more sustainable than fossil fuels.

State looked no further than oil industry contractors to run the draft SEIS — companies like Cardno ENTRIX, which calls TransCanada a «major client,» and ERM Resources, a dues paying member of the American Petroleum Institute which is being investigated by the State Department's Inspector General for trying to hide its prior consulting for fossil fuel giants like ExxonMobil, BP and Shell.

I know many on this site beleive peak oil is a bigger threat than global warming, but I can't help but think the 20 - 100 year time lag between CO2 release and maximum effect is a far less addressable than issues of increasing fossil fuel prices.