Sentences with phrase «future by reducing the carbon emissions»

At the same time, we must work to minimize these risks in the future by reducing the carbon emissions that are causing climate change and its accompanying impacts.

Not exact matches

In fact, according to new research by the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University, UN member countries can reduce their carbon emissions up to 2 % per year by implementing Meat Free Monday.

«The Clean Energy Jobs and Climate Agenda released today will continue New York's path towards a more sustainable future by reducing harmful carbon emissions, ending New York's reliance on coal, and advancing offshore wind, energy efficiency, and energy storage.

However, if we choose a different path — if we act aggressively to both adapt to the changing climate and to mitigate future impacts by reducing carbon emissions — we can significantly reduce our exposure to the worst economic risks from climate change, and also demonstrate global leadership on climate.

We must also take steps to minimize the risks of climate change in the future by taking immediate action to reduce the carbon emissions that are driving up the planet's temperature.

In addition to stopping the seas from rising we shall undertake to protect protect our children and future generations of unaborted from the effects of climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat - trapping pollutants and by taking sensible steps to prepare for changes in climate that are no longer avoidable.

In an 80 percent renewables future, carbon emissions from the power sector would be reduced by 80 percent, and water use would be reduced by 50 percent.

With the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, future emissions will need to be reduced by half to that of historical emissions to limit global average temperature rise to 2 °C.

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

That framing costs as a foregone - gain increased the amount people were prepared to reduce emissions is noteworthy because public messages about climate policy impacts typically frame the costs of reducing emissions as a loss [13]-- a pattern confirmed by our analysis of newspaper communications regarding the future costs of Australia's carbon pricing scheme.

It means that even if we completely ignored the fact that lower emissions will reduce future climate change damage, it would still make society richer by implementing a 100 % revenue - neutral carbon tax swap.

This, despite the fact that the European Union is threatening to penalize US and other foreign aircraft if they emit CO2 in Europe's airspace, another harbinger of future pressure expected to be placed on the carbon - intensive US by the international community to reduce its per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

In this regard, carbon removal approaches share a common purpose with conventional climate mitigation technologies, which also seek to reduce human influence on the climate system (by reducing future anthropogenic GHG emissions).

Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate.

The company has reduced carbon emissions by 27 percent over the past decade and it has a «plan to meet future load growth with conservation, renewable energy, natural gas and market purchases,» Connett noted.

Provided that the excess carbon emissions came from activities that accelerated the decline of global poverty (e.g., by enabling more of the global poor to electrify their homes and businesses more quickly), such overshooting could help reduce the injustices associated with global poverty without unjustly burdening future generations.