Sentences with phrase «future use of fossil fuels»

The groups say it is imperative that the state immediately halt any investments in the future use of fossil fuels, including natural gas.

Not exact matches

But fossil fuels still account for the majority of both electricity use and primary energy use overall, and at no time in the near future will that change.

Small increases per person can have an enormous effect when multiplied by huge numbers of people, as for example in China and India, if, as they propose, they increase their use of fossil fuels in the near future.

It concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations had already increased by about 25 percent in the past century, and continued use of fossil fuels would lead to substantial temperature increases in the future.

Using these much smaller, observationally based climate sensitivities, the projected warming from continued use of fossil fuels will be moderate and benign for the foreseeable future.

All that has just been described on the duration of fossil fuel reserves indicates that, given the longevity of coal, it would be the source of energy to be used in the future when other fossil fuels are depleted, a fact that would aggravate the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.

Kolbert brilliantly and engagingly combines science and travel writing to fully reveal how our use of fossil fuels is rapidly changing the atmosphere, the oceans, and the climate, potentially forcing millions of species into extinction and putting our own future at risk.

I envision a day when carbon rich liquid is used to fill in the holes from which oil was once extracted, for example, and of course for the foreseeable future there will be applications (air travel) where fossil fuels are the only viable option.

As the effects, the true costs of our current fossil fuel use will be felt to the greatest extent in the future, it seems reasonable to pay the price for those costs now, not leave the debt for future generations to pay with higher cancer rates and global temperatures.

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).

In addition, the popularity of natural gas relies, in part, on its reputation as a «bridge fuel» — the fossil fuel that will lead to a renewable energy future because it's cleaner burning, emits less greenhouse gas and uses water less intensively in certain steps of the process.

The world is going to go on using as much in the way of fossil fuels as it can, into the indefinite future.

On the point of the use of fossil fuels to produce alternatives, that's rather obvious, as that is the current fuel system, the current starting point for any future.

In any case, I and a few others will continue to use mathematical models of fossil fuel depletion to anticipate what the future production levels of place such as the Bakken formation hold for oil and natural gas.

I would agree 100 % that building nuclear power plants using today's best technology to cover a majority of future electrical energy needs or to replace old fossil fuel plants that are being decommissioned anyway makes sense.

It follows that reducing fossil fuel use means reducing economic development, condemning poor societies to remain poor, and requiring poor people of today to sacrifice for the sake of richer people of the future — a clear injustice.

Some models can be made to agree with reality if they use zero positive feedback and non-declining natural variation but we must avoid using any projections of declining fossil fuel use since it seems impossible for the near future.

We are a network of South Africans calling for divestment from fossil fuels — and restorative reinvestment in sustainable energy — to stigmatise fossil fuel use, accelerate sustainable system change, help slow climate change, reduce the financial risks of fossil fuel investments, and so help secure our human rights and common future.

By overlooking nuclear power in the quest for clean energy, we are condemning ourselves to a future of increased fossil fuel use.

Based on this source list, future CH4 emission trajectories depend upon such variables as volumes of fossil fuels used in the scenarios, regional demographic and affluence developments, and assumptions on preferred diets and agricultural practices.

It turns out that the maximum temperature rise associated with future fossil fuel use is only 0.8 °C, less than half of the total.

This is one of the reasons that I plot the temperature rise due to future fossil fuel use separately.

bearing in mind that only a small percentage of earths population have access to electricity, if we enabled all under developed countries in the world with fossil fuel electricity and heating systems, we would likely have to cover every sq inch of farmland in trees to combat climate change.rather than outright fighting the building of wind turbines (that in future times can be repaired at a fraction of the impact and pollution of replacing them) we should be putting pressure on the manufacturers of these systems and technologies to invest more in finding green solutions to using the polluting chemicals in the construction of turbines.

We now have both an undeniable imperative to prevent future harm coupled with increasingly powerful tools for bringing down world fossil fuel use and an egregious dumping of carbon into the atmosphere and oceans.

Via our society's use of fossil fuels we are, if our combustion of these fuels remains unchecked and in addition we further destroy the carbon fixing capacity of natural systems, destroying almost all wealth, the likelihood of their being future civilizations, and even the possibility for existence for future generations.

The case against CO2 is full of liabilities; if there is any bad consequence due in future to future CO2 it will take at least a century to produce an effect large enough to matter; there is no case that reducing human fossil fuel use will produce a climate benefit sooner than it produces a fuel benefit.

Regardless of our future national energy strategy (fossil fuels (oil, coal) versus renewable energy (solar, wind, biofuels, tidal, etc.)-RRB-, there will still exist the need to feed the ever - growing population (N2O released thru fertilizer use), refrigerate food for storage (leakage and release of the refrigerant, HFCs), and distribute electrical power (dielectric gases used like SF6).

We know from our analysis of climate change, from the accelerating deterioration of the economy's ecological supports, and from our projections of future resource use that the western economic model — the fossil - fuel - based, automobile - centered, throwaway economy — will not last much longer.

In addition, I have shown you that the total future GH warming from the principal GHG, CO2, is constrained by carbon content of all remaining fossil fuels on Earth to an absolute asymptotic maximum of around 2C, which could theoretically occur in 200 to 300 years, in the unlikely event that all fossil fuels get 100 % used up by then

The cost / benefit analysis of actions taken to limit CO2 levels depends on the discount rate used and allowances made, if any, for the positive future positive economic effects of CO2 production on agriculture and of fossil fuel based energy production.

We are focused on maximizing project success, using our knowledge of best practices in the biofuels industry to create sustainable power that allows our country to reduce its dependency on overseas energy markets and minimize future exploitation of dwindling fossil fuels.

because when fossil fuels are burned, the fossil fuels are running out more and more and so scientists are trying to figure out a way for fossil fuels to become more of a renewable resourse then a nonrenewable resource so that way we have more of a likely cause that we will have a future use of all the fossil fuel that are about to run out just like an extinct species.

If we want to limit the amount of carbon - dioxide in the atmosphere and stay below 2 °C, we'll have to replace about 80 percent of our current fossil - fuel use with carbon - free energy and then use only carbon - free energy to meet our future needs.

The world will of course use a variety of technologies to meet future energy demand, but these findings leave no doubt: the potential for wind power to replace fossil fuels and take a leading role in stabilizing climate is huge.

Undoubtedly, sea levels will continue to rise into the future, in part, from the earth's temperature increase as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions resulting from our use of fossil fuels.

The drive to achieve net - zero emissions from all fossil fuel use within perhaps 50 years or less will be a challenging but vital job for the current generation, and many future generations, of CCS workers and researchers.

Last year, on behalf of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an expert team of scientists summarized the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future, and called the evidence of a warming climate «unequivocal,» primarily due to the use of fossil fuels — coal, oil, and gas — and the loss of forests.

Even if the planet voted for severe cuts in fossil fuel use, the combined heights and durations of future floods could increase at least fourfold, and perhaps as much as 75-fold.

Regardless of whether early land use significantly affected global climate, understanding the global role of land use in determining the onset and magnitude of anthropogenic climate change is critical for gauging the climatic impact of current and future modifications of the terrestrial biosphere, including efforts to offset fossil fuel emissions by reducing deforestation (114).

This effort is a critical component of NOAA's research into the future of the earth as a system under the influence of anthropogenic forcing to better understand how emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, land use decisions and climate and ecological interactions will determine future carbon dioxide levels and the corresponding climate change.

Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels used in the state and will continue to be a significant energy source for the foreseeable future.

One way or another, there is no long term future whatsoever for humanity that does not involve the complete eradication of widespread, industrial scale, use of fossil fuels.

Roome refused to rule out fossil fuel investments in the future, but said they would be subject to strict criteria, to do with their necessity, ensuring the most efficient technology was used, and investigation of alternatives.

According to Soon, «Any attempt to stop the use of available fossil fuels for life and all human activities will cause far more harm and lead to more deaths than the theological belief in future catastrophic disasters endorsed by the encyclical.»

Quite a contrast with President Obama (and others») invocation of a leisurely «bridge to the future» where fossil fuel use is concerned, or of neoliberal economic policies (to say nothing of austerity politics).

Dreaming New Mexico used Google Earth to create a future vision of New Mexico in 2020 should it switch from fossil fuels to the renewable energy abundantly available within the state.

This broad «Target Goal» being the ONLY rational solution for ameliorating climate change into the future = cutting fossil fuel use to 10 % of the current use by ~ 2050.

Not only is there a lack of political will to make major cuts to fossil fuel use, there is no physical capacity to replace such cuts now or into the future in full with any Non-carbon energy supply.

Posted in NWEI Discussion Courses, NWEI News, Powering a Bright Future Tagged energy extraction, energy issues, energy policy, energy production, energy use and equity, environmental impacts of energy use, fossil fuel subsidies, how to promote energy sustainability, peak oil, post carbon era, Powering a Bright Future Comments closed

While the cost of the heating and cooling is not much different than before, customers can be assured of stable prices in the future compared to the cost they could incur by using fossil fuels.