Sentences with phrase «global emissions because»

In addition, every national ghg emissions target is already implicitly a position on the nation's appropriate fair share of safe global emissions because it is a global problem about which each nation must do its fair share.

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:

When you argue that nations such as the United States need not reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions because other nations such as China or India have not taken action,

We can't make any durable dent in global emissions because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast.

For these reasons, the United States may not refuse to reduce its emissions to its fair share of safe global emission because not all nations have acted accordingly.

Not exact matches

Yes, it started out making electric cars, but only because personal transportation is the lowest - hanging fruit in tackling the global energy and emissions problem.

As one of the group's leaders, Hsu Jen - hsiu, rightly says eating less or no meat is a way to love our planet because livestock emit large volumes of methane into the atmosphere, which contribute more to global warming than the emissions produced by all the vehicles around the world.

Because of our work, 18,000 American schools are providing kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; 21,000 African farmers have improved their crops to feed 30,000 people; 248 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced in cities worldwide; more than 5,000 people have been trained in marketable job skills in Colombia; more than 5 million people have benefited from lifesaving HIV / AIDS medications; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative have made nearly 2,300 Commitments to Action to improve more than 400 million lives around the world.

«However, an exact figure for global CO ₂ emissions resulting from the infant formula industry is not known,» says Alison Linnecar, author of the report, «partly because the CO ₂ emissions per liter vary between countries.

But the court accepted the Australian government's case that there was no definitive proof that coal from the Carmichael mine would increase global greenhouse emissions, because multiple factors affect how much coal is burned annually.

That's because climate change is a global problem, and addressing it would require concerted action by all nations, heavy investments in carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and near - zero emissions before 2050.

Because according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reducing global carbon emissions should begin at home.

Because of black carbon's short residency in the atmosphere, reducing black carbon emissions is considered a short - term strategy for mitigating global climate change.

The results imply that the interaction between organic and sulfuric acids promotes efficient formation of organic and sulfate aerosols in the polluted atmosphere because of emissions from burning of fossil fuels, which strongly affect human health and global climate.

The authors argue that the recent trajectory implies that the destinations of China's foreign export emissions would further shift from developed countries to developing countries because of its changing role in global trade.

Cleaning the air Because air quality in half of India's cities suffers from particulate pollution 1.5 times global standards, a shift to greener rickshaws could help dent emissions there sizably.

And this is really a serious thing to think about because, Africa, for example, is way down there, barely off the graph, and India too, which is now in the top ten CO2 emitters, is nowhere near the global per capita emissions.

Oceans play a key role in mitigating climate change, in part because they absorb about 25 % of global carbon - dioxide emissions from fossil - fuel burning and deforestation, he said.

These aquatic environments are relevant in the context of climate change because they are responsible for much of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Government officials also argue that even if Singapore stops building oil refineries, it would not make a big difference in combating global warming because the country accounts for only 0.11 percent of global emissions.

Because the threats climate change poses to reef systems are difficult to control without global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many coral reef experts have advocated reducing the stresses to coral reefs that are easier to control at a local level.

For now, the European emissions trading system has emerged as the core of a nascent global market because it features the strongest institutions and exchanges the greatest volume of credits.

«A global assessment of marine nitrous oxide emissions is, however, difficult because we do not know exactly where and how much nitrous oxide is produced,» says marine chemist Damian L. Arévalo - Martínez from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel.

«We have focused our efforts on the oxidation of α - pinene, because it accounts for about half of global monoterpene emissions,» explains Dr. Mikael Ehn from the University of Helsinki, who is the first author of this study and did the pioneering work for the discovering of ELVOCs.

Thus, only human - made emissions, such as factory and car secretions, could cause runaway global climate change because they lack natural negative feedbacks to balance them.

Greenpeace's goal in India is to stop all new coal - fired power plants because the resulting carbon emissions would contribute to global warming, even though scientists caution that renewable energy has not yet matured enough to supplant future coal - fired generation.

«This is important because warming in the Arctic may expand the active layer and increase the discharge, leading to increased emissions from Arctic lakes and driving additional global warming.»

Even some environmentalists have begun to embrace nuclear power, because of its potential to reduce the greenhouse emissions that are blamed for global warming.

That's at least according to a new study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, which details how global carbon emissions from forests could have been underestimated because calculations have not fully accounted for the dead wood from logging.

(The global average is delayed from the Mauna Loa record because most CO2 emissions come from the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes about a year for air from that hemisphere to mix into the Southern Hemisphere.)

Because everyone in this global community will be affected by climate change, it will be for our own benefit if we manage to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in such a way that global warming is limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius», says Prof. Ulf Riebesell, marine biologist at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and coordinator of BIOACID.

The methane piece of the global warming puzzle is even more difficult to grasp because while its levels have steadily risen since the mid-19th century, they have leveled off in the past decade, and scientists aren't sure why — there could be less methane emissions or more destruction of the molecule as it reacts in the atmosphere.

And because greater action will be required over time, it is important to note that the INDCs do not indicate any locking in of the level of global emissions in 2030.

There isn't another solution because in a global world the development costs are extremely high due to the more and more severe standards regarding safety and emissions.

Because methane is mostly well - mixed in the atmosphere, emissions from the Arctic or from the US must be seen within the context of the global sources of methane to the atmosphere.

It's an important moment for this message to sink in, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting this week in Bangkok, is getting ready to dive in on a special report on the benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above Earth's temperature a century or more ago and emissions paths to accomplish that (to learn what this murky number means in relation to the more familiar 2 - degree limit click here for a quick sketch, basic science, deep dive).

«A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions could speed up global warming... because current global warming is offset by global dimming — the 2 - 3ºC of cooling cause by industrial pollution, known to scientists as aerosol particles, in the atmosphere.»

Since the early 1990s we have made basically no progress in cutting global emissions — in part, as Kerry says, because the conversation about climate change policy strategy hasn't really changed.

In time, global greenhouse gas emissions will be slowed and stabilized, forcing the CO2 curve to bend downward to acceptable permanent levels, simply because there is no other choice.

While in the developed world (US, Europe, the ex-USSR) emissions have been falling, the global burden is increasing because of development in India and China.

Because that's about how much time we have to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and begin steep reductions that will bring emissions to near zero within another ten years at most, if we are to have any hope of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of global warming.

A global carbon market will also need a multilateral approach to linking the disparate markets together, because different countries have different carbon emissions levels.

On the other side, while there will undoubtedly be high costs to any serious attempt at mitigation, this would also require something like a global agreement (covering at least the rich world, India and China, and probably other states with large and currently poor populations) which would inevitably have to bring in issues other than greenhouse gas emissions — such as those you mention — if only because these states will say, reasonably enough, that they can not bring their populations on board without serious help in those other areas.

Global Warming On the issue of global warming, I am always on the lookout for simple explanations from the scientific community that can be used to communicate to hoi polloi why global warming is occurring primarily because of human activity (especially emissiGlobal Warming On the issue of global warming, I am always on the lookout for simple explanations from the scientific community that can be used to communicate to hoi polloi why global warming is occurring primarily because of human activity (especially emissiglobal warming, I am always on the lookout for simple explanations from the scientific community that can be used to communicate to hoi polloi why global warming is occurring primarily because of human activity (especially emissiglobal warming is occurring primarily because of human activity (especially emissions...

Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a «Faustian bargain» because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated GHG in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs.

That is because accumulating observations and analysis pointing to the causes and consequences of global warming merely delineate the problem, including areas of persistent uncertainty, uneven exposure to risk and uneven responsibility for emissions of greenhouse gases.

That's because when you really look at it, you will see that even a massive global effort to build thousands of new nuclear power plants would have only a modest impact on GHG emissions and even that impact won't occur for decades.

«that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels must be largely responsible for the run - up in global temperatures, because all other possibilities have been investigated and none are sufficient to produce the observed results on their own.

And the reason those 21st century emissions fail to make much of an impression on global temperature is because the atmospheric levels of GHG begin to decline when our emissions are cut (the cut required depending on the gas in question).

I.e., that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels must be largely responsible for the run - up in global temperatures, because all other possibilities have been investigated and none are sufficient to produce the observed results on their own.