Sentences with phrase «higher carbon emissions because»

Men tend to have higher carbon emissions because they eat more meat and drive larger vehicles.

Not exact matches

The main reason the US ranks so poorly on carbon dioxide emissions is because its per - person consumption rate of electricity is so high; all of that energy comes primarily from fossil fuels.

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air is now at its highest level in human history, largely because of coal - burning power plants and vehicle emissions.

Xu said that higher trading activities are expected to emerge in coming weeks because regulated emitters are approaching their deadline of reporting annual emissions and therefore have stronger incentives to trade carbon allowances.

The team also observed that GHG Avoided [GHGA = (1 - GHGI) · (lifecycle GHG emissions for the displaced fossil fuels] for BTL - RC - CCS is 56 % higher than that of EtOH - CCS largely because 56 % of the biomass carbon is stored underground for BTL - RC - CCS compared to only 15 % for EtOH - CCS.

One minister says it is «stupid» to pin such high hopes on renewable energies, because boosting them is not the same thing as cutting carbon emissions.

Yet RGGI hasn't induced a robust enough carbon price to drive down emissions, primarily because the initial emissions «cap» was set 45 % higher than actual emissions by the covered power plants and wasn't tightened enough to actually «bind» until four years later.

I am not completely discounting this being a possible necessary govt role because what happens if a sizeable proportion of people are rich enough and want to retain use of gas guzzling muscle ICE cars as status symbols despite high carbon taxes while it also becomes clear we need to get to zero net emissions?

Because most of our energy has historically come from fossil fuels, rising economic growth has gone hand in hand with higher carbon emissions.

The burning of tropical peatlands is so significant for greenhouse gas emissions because these areas store some of the highest quantities of carbon on Earth, accumulated over thousands of years.

Yet it is highly unlikely a global carbon pricing system will be implemented because negotiators recognize the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/05/19%20low%20carbon%20future%20wind%20solar%20power%20frank/net%20benefits%20final.pdf «As shown in Tables 2A and 2B, among the no - carbon energy alternatives, nuclear plants avoid the most emissions per MW of new capacity, simply because nuclear plants have far and away the highest capacity factor.

Yet it is highly unlikely a global carbon pricing system will be implemented because negotiators recognise the high cost for negligible benefit for participants until there is a global system with near full participation (all human - caused GHG emissions from all countries).

It is quite possible that CO2 concentration will rise more rapidly and be higher than anticipated because of carbon emissions from thawing Arctic permafrost.

Despite the growth in renewables, carbon emissions from the electricity sector continue remain high because the market is allowed to favour the most polluting fuels such as coal and peat to generate electricity.

Finally, latest global emission trends are higher than those anticipated in most IPCC scenarios, largely because of higher economic growth and a shift towards more carbon intensive sources of energy.

If one takes historical emissions into account, one could argue that an EU or U.S. individual exceeded a fair allocation of carbon emissions long ago, whereas Chinese individuals have not yet come close to using up their fair share (because their high emissions rates began relatively recently and because China is supporting a larger population).

While that loss was low, it resulted in a disproportionate amount of carbon emissions because the protected areas had higher density of forest cover relative to unprotected forests.

But we need to act now, because each power station, city or transport system built without the climate in mind is a guarantee that high carbon emissions will continue for decades, unless we invest in the even higher cost of replacing it.

Because changes in the market away from fossil fuels will inevitably make those energy sources less expensive, carbon taxes keep their prices high, reflecting the costs imposed on society by carbon emissions.

Inevitable, the costs to achieve the target emissions reductions would be much higher and the benefits would not be delivered (because it is highly unlikely the world will agree to a global carbon price).

Because of the combination of high absorption, a regional distribution roughly aligned with solar irradiance, and the capacity to form widespread atmospheric brown clouds in a mixture with other aerosols, emissions of black carbon are the second strongest contribution to current global warming, after carbon dioxide emissions.

It is because so little energy is being used, and because alternatives are ruled out ab initio (the model contains no nuclear power, and no technology for storing away carbon emissions from fossil fuels; natural gas prices rise strongly and coal plants are retired well before they are clapped out) that the model ends up with such a high percentage of renewables; indeed given the premise it's slightly surprising it doesn't end up with even more.

Because lower rank coals have relatively high carbon dioxide emission factors, increased use of these coals caused the national average carbon dioxide emission factor to rise from 206.5 pounds per million Btu in 1980 to 207.6 pounds per million Btu in 1992.

Because higher taxes on fuels will create a strong «market pull» to clean energy, carbon taxes will put a big dent in fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions without having to earmark revenues for hybrid cars, mass transit, biofuels, etc. — or to lawmakers» pet projects.

These plants (because they are so high in carbon emissions) account for 80 % of the CO2 emissions due to electricity generation in the US.

This matters because the climate change debate has been hi - jacked, emissions made worse by the net effects of renewables for a fast lobbyist buck in fact, driven by ignorance and misleading attacks that lump clean low carbon gas with dirty high carbon coal, and old school anti-nuclear activists who oppose nuclear generation on factualy spurious grounds, while it is in physics and engineering fact by far the best solution on any measure, through promoting irrational fear unsupported in any area of the facts and proven physics they deceive the unknowing about with simply false or msleading «sience».