Sentences with phrase «gas sharing change»

Not exact matches

Odum shared Clark's view that the Russia - China gas pact, in the works for a decade, «doesn't change the outlook here at all.»

The Sydney Gas Company (SGC), which listed as specialist opal explorer Desertstone NL in July 1996, has undertaken a significant change in direction which has resulted in its shares spiking to more than $ 1.20 in the last few weeks.

Loeb recently told Third Point fund investors that shares of the oil and gas company could be 60 percent higher, and he outlined changes it could make to add value, such as spinning off its retail business or selling its Canadian natural gas assets.

UNG's investment objective is for the daily changes in percentage terms of its shares» net asset value to reflect the daily changes in percentage terms of the natural gas price delivered at the Henry Hub, La., as measured by the daily changes in the benchmark futures contract minus expenses.

And, of course, those commitments and associated domestic measures are just Canada's means to achieve the ends of contributing to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to a level that avoids the dangerous climate change, the shared goal set out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reiterated in the Paris Agrechange, the shared goal set out in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and reiterated in the Paris AgreChange and reiterated in the Paris Agreement.

Arkady was said to have been trying to get some placing shares in the last fund raise but was too late getting the paperwork in as it was oversubscribed.Roman Abramovich gave an interview to i think a dubai newspaper in early jan where he stated he is actively seeking new oil and gas assets in siberia and he also mentioned the new proposed changes to the mineral extraction tax.So putting two and two together he must think the smaller companies in the region are prime for picking off some assets or take over.

By April 2012 all that changed, and for the first time in recorded history the share of gas and coal were now equal at 32 %.

To some extent, today's session is just part of the broader North - South tussle over how to share benefits (derived from biological resources) and burdens (from constraining greenhouse gases and adapting to changing climate patterns).

Climate change is driven by human activity — chiefly the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use — and forests and other natural ecosystems play a powerful role in both soaking up the greenhouse gases released by human economic activity and at the same time sheltering many of the other 10 million or so species that share the planet.

Power sector CO2 emissions declined by 363 million metric tons between 2005 and 2013, due to a decline in coal's generation share and growing use of natural gas and renewables, but the CO2 emissions are projected to change only modestly from 2013 through 2040 in the 3 baseline cases used in this report.

A recent study for Friends of the Earth Europe by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research found that EU countries can afford just nine more years of burning gas and other fossil fuels at the current rate before they will have exhausted their share of the earth's remaining carbon budget for maximum temperature rises of 2 °C.

For countries less fussed about climate change (some ex-communist newcomers), the policy stresses independence from scary suppliers such as Russia, and asks the rich countries of old Europe to accept the lion's share of greenhouse - gas curbs.

At the workshop, participants shared their views on the use of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas and the revision of the Guidelines for the preparation of national communications by parties included in Annex I to the Convention, Part I.

Since 2006 - 07 the share of gas in power generation has fallen from 58 % to 49 % but the big change has been in coal, which has fallen from 42 % to 25 %.

Coal and natural gas generation shares over the past decade have been responsive to changes in relative fuel prices.

For example, the San Diego Regional Climate Collaborative brings together a number of public agencies as well as universities and nonprofits to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prepare for local climate change impacts and share their learnings.

The gas market is also changing, with the share of LNG overtaking pipelines and growing to more than half of the global long - distance gas trade, up from a quarter in 2000.

David Ciplet, also of Brown University, adds: «Only two of the ten donors we assessed are delivering their fair share of climate finance, based on their ability to pay and how much they have contributed to climate change through emitting greenhouse gases in recent decades.»

This is so because in addition to the theological reasons given by Pope Francis recently: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

This is so because: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

Of great concern, some natural gas companies are on the one hand claiming that natural gas is better for the climate change while they fight legislation to increase the US share of renewable energy.

When you argue that nations such as the United States or states, regional, or local governments, businesses, organizations, or individuals that emit high levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) need not reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions because of scientific uncertainty about adverse climate change impacts:

Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: In April of this year, coal's share in power generation plummeted to just 32 percent, on par with gas.

This energy package, also referred to as the 20-20-20 package, was thought to help the EU meet its commitments for 2020 under the UN climate change negotiations by demanding a 20 % reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels; raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 %; and finally, by improving the EU's energy efficiency also by 20 %

This post reviews the Cancun outcome through an ethical lens in light of the overall responsibility of those nations that are exceeding their fair share of safe global emissions in regard to their duties: (a) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels necessary to prevent harm to others, (b) to reduce greenhouse gas emission to levels consistent with what is each nation's fair share of total global emissions, and (c) to provide financing for adaptation measures and other necessary responses to climate change harms for those who are most vulnerable and least responsible for climate change.

No US national climate change strategy makes any sense unless it is understood to implicitly be a position on the US fair share of a global greenhouse gas emissions reductions pathway capable of preventing dangerous climate change.

Trump is set to sign an executive order Tuesday that would promote domestic oil, coal and gas by reversing much of former President Barack Obama's efforts to address climate change, according to details shared with Bloomberg News.

Yet when US federal climate change legislation was under consideration between 2009 and 2010, there was almost no public discussion about whether proposed US climate change legislation would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions to levels that represent the US fair share of safe global emissions.

Those nations, sub-national governments, organizations, businesses, and individuals that are emitting greenhouse gases above their fair share of safe global emissions have obligations, duties, and responsibilities for the costs of adaptation or damages to those who are harmed or will be harmed by climate change.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

Because no nation may ethically use as an excuse for non-action on climate change that it need not reduce its greenhouse gases to its fair share of safe global emissions until other nations act, nations will continue to inappropriately refuse to act on the basis that other nations have not acted.

As we shall see, these countries, among others, have continued to negotiate as if: (a) they only need to commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emission if other nations commit to do so, in other words that their national interests limit their international obligations, (b) any emissions reductions commitments can be determined and calculated without regard to what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, (c) large emitting nations have no duty to compensate people or nations that are vulnerable to climate change for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Cchange for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Cchange damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeChange.

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW Minister for the Environment & Heritage: David Kemp Minister for Forestry & Conservation: Ian McDonald Total Energy Consumption (2000E): 4.89 quadrillion Btu * (1.2 % of world total energy consumption) Energy - Related Carbon Emissions (2000E): 96.87 million metric tons of carbon (1.5 % of world carbon emissions) Per Capita Energy Consumption (2000E): 255 million Btu (vs U.S. value of 351 million Btu) Per Capita Carbon Emissions (2000E): 5.1 metric tons of carbon (vs U.S. value of 5.6 metric tons of carbon) Energy Intensity (2000E): 10,804 Btu / U.S. $ 1995 (vs U.S. value of 10,918 Btu / $ 1995) ** Carbon Intensity (2000E): 0.21 metric tons of carbon / thousand U.S. $ 1995 (vs U.S. value of 0.17 metric tons / thousand $ 1995) ** Sectoral Share of Energy Consumption (1999E): Transportation (42 %) Industrial (37 %), Residential (13.5 %), Commercial (7.5 %) Sectoral Share of Carbon Emissions (1998E): Industrial (46.4 %), Transportation (26.5 %), Residential (15.2 %), Commercial (11.9 %) Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2000E): Coal (44.2 %), Oil (34.8 %), Natural Gas (16.6 %) Fuel Share of Carbon Emissions (1999E): Coal (55.4 %), Oil (32.6 %), Natural Gas (12.0 %) Renewable Energy Consumption (1998E): 396 trillion Btu * (0.9 % increase from 1997) Number of People per Motor Vehicle (1998): 1.7 (vs U.S. value of 1.3) Status in Climate Change Negotiations: Annex I country under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (ratified December 30th, 1992).

All climate protection projects share the same goal of reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but high quality projects are capable of doing much more than just combating climate change.

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW Total Energy Consumption (2000E): 2.7 quadrillion Btu * (0.7 % of world total energy consumption) Energy - Related Carbon Emissions (2000E): 36.4 million metric tons of carbon (0.6 % of world carbon emissions) Per Capita Energy Consumption (2000E): 73.2 million Btu (vs. U.S. value of 351.0 million Btu) Per Capita Carbon Emissions (2000E): 1.0 metric tons of carbon (vs U.S. value of 5.6 metric tons of carbon) Energy Intensity (2000E): 9,226 Btu / $ 1995 (vs U.S. value of 10,918 Btu / $ 1995) ** Carbon Intensity (2000E): 0.12 metric tons of carbon / thousand $ 1995 (vs U.S. value of 0.17 metric tons / thousand $ 1995) ** Sectoral Share of Energy Consumption (1998E): Industrial (48.6 %), Transportation (23.7 %), Residential (18.8 %), Commercial (8.8 %) Sectoral Share of Carbon Emissions (1998E): Industrial (44.8 %), Transportation (32.7 %), Residential (16.2 %), Commercial (6.2 %) Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2000E): Natural Gas (45.2 %), Oil (36.3 %), Coal (1.5 %) Fuel Share of Carbon Emissions (2000E): Oil (48.1 %), Natural Gas (49.3 %), Coal (2.5 %) Renewable Energy Consumption (1998E): 393 trillion Btu * (0.5 % decrease from 1997) Number of People per Motor Vehicle (1998): 5.6 (vs U.S. value of 1.3) Status in Climate Change Negotiations: Non-Annex I country under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (signed June 12, 1992 and ratified on March 11, 1994).

ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW Secretary of Environment & Natural Resources: Victor Lichtinger Total Energy Consumption (2000E): 6.18 quadrillion Btu * (1.6 % of world total energy consumption) Energy - Related Carbon Emissions (2000E): 103.2 million metric tons of carbon (1.6 % of world total carbon emissions) Per Capita Energy Consumption (2000E): 62.5 million Btu (vs U.S. value of 351.0 million Btu) Per Capita Carbon Emissions (2000E): 1.0 metric tons of carbon (vs U.S. value of 5.6 metric tons of carbon) Energy Intensity (2000E): 16,509 Btu / $ 1995 (vs U.S. value of 10,918 Btu / $ 1995) ** Carbon Intensity (2000E): 0.28 metric tons of carbon / thousand $ 1995 (vs U.S. value of 0.18 metric tons / thousand $ 1995) ** Sectoral Share of Energy Consumption (1998E): Industrial (54.7 %), Transportation (24.8 %), Residential (15.9 %), Commercial (4.6 %) Sectoral Share of Carbon Emissions (1998E): Industrial (50.9 %), Transportation (31.1 %), Residential (13.2 %), Commercial (4.8 %) Fuel Share of Energy Consumption (2000E): Oil (63.2 %), Natural Gas (23.7 %), Coal (4.0 %) Fuel Share of Carbon Emissions (2000E): Oil (73.5 %), Natural Gas (20.4 %), Coal (6.2 %) Renewable Energy Consumption (1998E): 713.7 trillion Btu * (1 % decrease from 1997) Number of People per Motor Vehicle (1998): 6.9 (vs U.S. value of 1.3) Status in Climate Change Negotiations: Non-Annex I country under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (ratified March 11th, 1993).

It also said that while there is no doubt that «people cause climate change,» the developing world has been responsible for a much smaller share of world's greenhouse gas emissions than developed countries.

Insurers need to: collect more complete data on weather - related losses; incorporate climate modeling into their risk analyses; analyze the implications of climate change on their business and investments and share the results with shareholders; and encourage policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Convention on Climate Change establishes a setting to discuss legally binding means of addressing these issues, and it «recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.»

While world leaders met in Paris to hash out a climate deal that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Nye shared with Quartz his thoughts on climate change denial, curbing global warming, the wonders of electric cars, and why we should invest in science education.

In its 2007 Climate Change Synthesis Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared that year's Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, projected temperature increases in the 21st Century of from 2 to 6 °C (4 to 11 °F) if no action is taken beyond what little has already been taken to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Parties to that convention agreed that the industrialized nations — which had produced the lion's share of greenhouse gas emissions — should take the lead in combating climate change «on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities» (United Nations 1992).

We have our share of services: two drycleaners, two beauty salons, one nail shop, a florist, three gas stations with convenience stores, Goodyear Tire, Valvoline 10 - minute Oil Change, a bank and two ATM huts.