Sentences with phrase «highest emitting countries»

Its success depends on world leaders turning up, in particular from the highest emitting countries.

International equity — letting poor countries emit more carbon than rich countries from here on out — demands that the United States, Europe, and other historically high emitting countries should position themselves for at least 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2030.

Not exact matches

Anaerobic technology is particularly applicable to countries suffering drought, where treated waste water not only provides green energy to substitute for fossil fuels emitting climate change gases, but also processes waste streams to high recycling standards.

«It is not clear that this program has a whole lot of bite for a lot of very high carbon emitting states in the rust belt area, and by contrast it appears that it has a much heavier impact along the southern tier of the country including the south - east and Texas.»

In a recent experiment performed at the Radioactive Isotope Beam Factory at RIKEN, an international collaboration with scientists from eleven countries, led by scientists of the Instituto de Estructura de la Materia, CSIC (Spain) and the RIKEN Nishina Center (Japan), made a very surprising observation: High - energy gamma rays — which are mediated by the electromagnetic force — are emitted in the decay of a certain excited nucleus — tin 133, in competition with neutron emission, the decay mode mediated by the strong nuclear force.

Australia relies heavily on coal for its own electricity as well, emitting more CO2 per person than any other developed country, and its agricultural emissions are among the highest per capita in the world, mainly because of the large numbers of sheep and cattle.

We will continue to meet with high representatives of these and other major energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting countries to consider the necessary components for successfully combating climate change.

It is a long story, but I now believe that focus on national responsibility has been a diversion — taking pressure off of high - emitting individuals in both developed and developing countries.

Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases have been, and continue to be, emitted by the massive fossil fuel consumption of a tiny percentage of the Earth's human population, most of them in countries with low rates of population growth — and that the overwhelming majority of human beings on the Earth, particularly those in countries with relatively high rates of population growth, generate only a small amount of greenhouse gases.

Most buyers of offsets are companies headquartered in high - emitting countries in North America and Europe that finance emissions reductions in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

So the trade part has two effects: (1) it makes a country want to set a high cap, and (2) it makes it want to emit less — if all the other countries have been nice and set their caps low so that they need permits and are willing to pay for them.

Countries set high caps to win the game, because setting a high cap (just like emitting CO2) helps them and mainly hurts everyone else.

We placed the emissions quintiles on a scale between the highest (acute emissions) and the lowest (low emissions) emitting countries.

They include, among many others, principles on what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, who is responsible for reasonable adaptation needs of those people at greatest risk from climate damages in poor nations that have done little to cause climate change, should high - emitting nations help poor nations obtain climate friendly energy technologies, and what responsibilities should high - emitting nations have for refugees who must flee their country because climate change has made their nations uninhabitable?

The vast improvement of billions of people worldwide over the last 60 - 70 years has come about because of the developments in the «high - emitting» countries since the Industrial Revolution, particularly through the dissemination of innovations and trade and the provision of markets.

The reasons for this are that the remaining carbon budget is so small, the per capita and historical emissions of high - emitting developed nations are so large compared to poor developing countries, and the financial resources of developed countries are so large compared to poor developing countries that equity considerations demand that the high - emitting nations financially help developing nations achieve their targets.

This question, following up on question one is designed to expose the ethical duty of high - emitting developed countries like the United States to refrain from further delay on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty given that the nation's non-action on climate change is already responsible for putting the international community in great danger from climate change.

The United States is not only responsible for the current crisis because, as President Obama noted, it is the second highest emitter of ghg in the world behind China, it has historically emitted much more ghgs into the atmosphere than any other country including China, it is currently near the top of all nations in per capita ghg emissions, and the US has been responsible more than any other developed nation for the failure of the international community to adopt meaningful ghg emissions reduction targets from the beginning of international climate negotiations in 1990 until the Obama administration.

This question is designed to correct the false claim that as long as a country such as China does not act, any action by a high - emitting nation such as the United States to reduce its ghg emissions makes no difference.

We have also seen that the United States approached negotiations in Cancun as if the United States need not make emissions reductions commitments unless it could secure commitments to reduce GHG emissions from high - emitting developing countries including China.

As we shall see, that high - emitting nations have responsibility for funding adaptation measures in developing countries is a conclusion that can be based on strong ethical grounds despite reasonable disagreements about such matters as when the ethical responsibility was triggered, which kinds of adaptation measures should be funded now, and the need to distinguish between responsibilities that arise due to the «fault» of high - emitting countries and responsibilities which arise without attributing «fault.»

But a country with low carbon intensity and large economy could still emit more overall than a country with a high carbon intensity and small economy.

In addition, given that responsibility for past emissions is arguably a factor that should be considered in determining fair allocations and given that people in most developed countries have historically emitted much higher levels than people in developing countries, it is quite clear that the vast majority of regional and local governments, organizations, and businesses can not reasonably argue that they are not exceeding their fair share of safe global emissions.

To overcome some of the challenges in determining precise obligations, international institutional responses such as funding needs through common forms of taxation, dedication of trading revenues for use for adaptation and compensation, and other institutional responses of high - emitting countries are worthy of serious consideration.

However the lack of emissions reductions commitments from the U.S. for the past few years puts decisions on finance into question, since many emerging economies like China and India who have only recently become high carbon emitting countries are loath to act until historical emitters, like the U.S., make a move.

In this ideal scenario, the declining emissions from these and other currently high - emitting countries will outpace growing emissions from India, African nations, and other emerging economies.

Also, the world no longer divides up so neatly between high - emitting developed countries and low - emitting developing countries.

At the center of efforts to bring down greenhouse gases — efforts that must involve the world's two highest - emitting countries — aren't just issues of politics and security, but the curious conflicting desires of both of

It basically argued that foreign trade was fine, but that you should measure goods by a combination of how much co2 they emit in shipping, versus how much economic benefit they brought to the producer countries — high value, non-perishable goods like wine, craft items etc that could be shipped by sea came out very well.

No one knows how high the country's emission peak will be and it's unclear how much carbon dioxide China will be emitting when 2030 comes around.

Yet climate change is an analogous problem because some very high - emitting countries are largely causing great harm to very low - emitting poor countries who can do little by themselves to protect themselves from the great harm.