Sentences with phrase «get emission growth»

OK, these numbers come from per capita emissions, so we get emission growth via two factors: development and population growth.

This will make getting emissions growth to zero «extra challenging,» Canadell says.

Not exact matches

Mexico gets a huge chunk of its energy from burning its own oil, which was the culprit behind its explosive growth in greenhouse gas emissions in the 20th century.

And that's one reason the developed world doesn't want to get «distracted» by a discussion of past emissions: Much of the world's greenhouse emissions growth in the future is coming from the China, India and other rapidly developing countries.

To get a sense for how this probability, or risk of such a storm, will change in the future, he performed the same analysis, this time embedding the hurricane model within six global climate models, and running each model from the years 2081 to 2100, under a future scenario in which the world's climate changes as a result of unmitigated growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm not sure this bodes well for the global thinking, and interaction, that'd have to take place if the world were to get serious about curbing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

To have a discernible impact on the growth in emissions from coal burning, carbon dioxide disposal would have to get to the billion - tons - a-year level.

The graph above, from the Dutch report, shows clearly how relentless overall emissions growth in countries climbing out of poverty (as electrification, manufacturing and mobility expand fossil fuel demand) was not blunted by the recession and is sending them and the rich world (which is getting ever more efficient and exporting manufacturing) toward some kind of carbon common ground.

If we reduce C02 emissions, reduce population growth, and reduce some level of materials consumption as much as practically feasible, this could get humanity through the worst of the climate and resource limits problems.

Canada's federal government, in a pledge that skeptical climate campaigners called a triumph of hope over experience, promised on Friday to reverse years of emissions growth and get its global warming pollution back on a downward slope.

Hindustan Times: India may have got what it wants from Doha climate talks but piggy - bagging China may not be of help in future with China's emissions witnessing much higher growth than that of India.

Expansion of grid supply by construction of big new coal fired power plants such as in the Hunter Valley and near Lithgow are going ahead and look to me to be intended to prevent the issue of decarbonising our energy supply getting mixed up with the issue of maintaining growth and reliability of supply; we'll have enough fossil fuel generating capacity that building low emissions capacity will remain «optional» and can be deferred another decade or two.

At the moment they only seem to be able to think in terms of getting growth going again while paying lip service to the need to limit carbon emissions.

However, we do have an option that will allow the CAGW alarmists to get their desire of reduced emissions and, at the same time, allow growth in prosperity and human wellbeing to continue unabated.

It notes that: 80 % of carbon dioxide emissions come from only 19 countries; the amount of carbon dioxide per US$ 1 GDP has dropped by 23 % since 1992, indicating some decoupling of economic growth from resource use; nearly all mountain glaciers around the world are retreating and getting thinner; and sea levels have been rising at an average rate of about 2.5 mm per year since 1992.

Norway's growth in emissions has been a lot less than its economic growth over the same period, so the economy is clearly getting cleaner.

In the 2000s, we had tremendous growth in emissions, not much in the way of policy efforts to control those emissions, and so when we got to the last IPCC report we were asked by the diplomats to study the feasibility and cost of meeting widely discussed goals, not just 2 degrees — also 1.5 degrees.

But to get this back on the general topic of «climate change», it is clear to me that the leaders of China are not about to endanger their nation's continued economic growth by engaging in the «rich, white - man's folly» of worrying about CO2 emissions.

When the cooling really gets going and the atmospheric CO2 growth decreases, are you gonna claim that it's scenario C then, in spite of rapidly growing emissions?

PA, how are you going to get billions of people out of poverty in this century, if they are going to rely primarily on fossil fuels for economic growth, and not dramatically increase CO2 emissions?

The emissions were used only to get a ball park for the rate of growth of the atmospheric composition increment.

The solution that will succeed is the opposite of what you advocate: maximise economic growth for the whole world — especially the poorest countries and remove the mass of impediments that are preventing them from getting cheap low emissions energy to replace fossil fuels.

If the correlation holds, and the cooling gets going, the average annual growth for the 2010s will be much lower than the average growth for the 2000s (~ 2 ppm / year), in spite of the growing emissions.

We need to eventually get CO2 emissions down to zero, but in the meantime it's the exponential growth that's our main enemy, since that boxes us in and leaves little time for decarbonizing the economy.

At the same time, however, experts warn that to limit climate change, it will be crucial to get a handle on emissions growth associated with transport — particularly in developing countries.