Sentences with phrase «how fossil fuel use»

It was, however, only after the advent of the computer that a modern understanding emerged of how fossil fuel use would impact the climate.

Not exact matches

While in use at the demonstration centre, the panels showcased distributed solar power for homes in British Columbia, bringing to life «practical solutions for urban sustainability, [and how to] move away from fossil fuels.»

FrieslandCampina added that it is aware of how dairy production affects the environment and has a multidisciplinary sustainability strategy, route2020, which aims to achieve climate - neutral growth by reducing the use of scarce materials (e.g. water, raw materials, and fossil fuels).

Asked by Errol Louis how to transition the country away from fossil fuels, Sanders says he supports the use of solar rooftops and a rededication to rail travel.

Reducing the amount of fossil fuels (such as gasoline for cars and coal burned for electricity) that we use can help slow how quickly the ice is melting (by slowing the rise in average temperatures).

To work out the economic benefits and costs of switching to clean energy, the team estimated how much air pollution would fall if fossil fuel use was slashed.

Next, Doney (p. 1512) reviews how the chemistry of the oceans is changing, mostly due to human fossil fuel combustion, fertilizer use, and industrial activity.

The new study suggests that some of these current uses will be affected over this century, depending on how much fossil fuel emissions increase or decrease.

No matter how you look at it, I think there's only one long - term solution: to stop using carbon as a source of energy, to switch away from using fossil fuels.

How will we manage our resources for instance, if we use up most of our fossil fuels and can't ship food across the country any longer?

Computerized climate models enable scientists to test how frequently similar storms might occur with or without fossil fuel use.

Regardless of how we feel about unconventional fossil fuels (for example, shale gas), we need chemists to inform decisions around their extraction and use.

There's a fantastic paper by the authors of the Beyond Zero Emissions Land Use Report explaining how there's an opportunity to reduce land sector emissions (especially methane) to temporarily halt global warming buying us time to get off fossils fuels if we reduced livestock production by say 50 % even.

Kolbert brilliantly and engagingly combines science and travel writing to fully reveal how our use of fossil fuels is rapidly changing the atmosphere, the oceans, and the climate, potentially forcing millions of species into extinction and putting our own future at risk.

Every element in the complex, beautiful illustrations supports the informative text, which offers a welcome, long - term perspective on the subject: how fossil fuels formed millions of years ago and how their use affects the planet today.

Now, humans having finally realized that there are unintended consequences to fossil fuel burning, are discussing how to continue using such Neanderthal energy technologies, while throwing up more pollutants or rigging up space - based Rube Goldberg contraptions to counteract their ill effects.

In those figures KA is speaking about how much Nuclear is needed to REPLACE ALL FOSSIL FUELS ENERGY USE GLOBALLY.

Energy is not the same as CO2: it's perfectly possible to get all the energy we really need without burning fossil fuels, the arguments have been about which technologies to use, how much they'll cost, and how soon they might be brought on line.

The discussion talks explicitly about how diminishing terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks over time require reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuels / land use to achieve stabilization goals at various levels (e.g. 550 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere).

I have difficulties to understand how a world having a separated European CO2 emission market and a separated Australian CO2 emission market and a separated US emission market could make the developing countries refrain from using all fossil fuels available to them.

With a better understanding of how it works, perhaps we could develop ways to use energy from the sun efficiently enough to replace the role of fossil fuels in the modern world.

While climate science promotes the narrative of cooperation for stopping the use of fossil fuels, one just need to look to how much money is spent in national defence budgets to see that the world is still fiercely competing to control the remaining economically viable resources of fossil fuels.

Policy is how to go about reducing the use of fossil fuels which are producing the extra CO2.

There's no mention of nuclear power and a pretty simplified summary of how to end fossil fuel use with today's renewable - energy technologies.

As long as fossil fuels wind up being abandoned, it doesn't matter how it happens, and it's probably more effective to use humor and economics against the pro-fossil-fuel crowd (oil & coal industries).

(2) Estimate from historic fossil fuel use and deforestation data how much humanity has already emitted.

The UNFCCC framework sees every country working to abate its domestic emissions or maybe reducing emissions elsewhere to offset them but not dealing with exports of fossil fuels and how they are used elsewhere.

I have yet to see how society will replace our present massive use of fossil carbon in time to minimize the impact of the decline in available low cost liquid fuels after Peak Oil.

This updated Kathy Zahng drawing (feather duster added) illustrates how proponents of a push to cut emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use have to step carefully given the ease of the task of their foes.

Officials in the Maldives made the decision after soliciting a report on how to cut fossil fuel use and otherwise trim the country's climate footprint from Chris Goodall and Mark Lynas, British environmentalists and authors of books on energy and climate.

On February 26, E&E Legal President Craig Richardson joined radio host Zeb Bell to discuss his recent op - ed, and how the Rockefeller Foundation and other green benefactors are using elected officials and the court system to shake down fossil fuel companies.

One is: how to drastically reduce fossil fuel use.

And as the English have done and as the Chinese and the Indians and etc will still do, they will use coal, lots of coal plus gas and oil for power generation until some capitalist somewhere with a very good idea on how to reduce costs and still make a fortune comes along and devises / discovers or restructures an old technology or a new power generation technology that is more efficient, lower cost, more profitable, just as reliable as fossil fueled, those coal, oil and gas generators

How CHP works is by using the heat that would otherwise be wasted in exhaust gases from fossil combustion systems, such as flue gases from a coal - or biomass - fueled boiler or exhaust from a gas turbine or reciprocating engine, to produce steam and / or hot water for various industrial or commercial needs.

If you accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human fossil fuel use is now the dominant contributor to atmospheric CO2 changes, then knowing how much global temperatures respond to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is important for understanding the future climate.

Pretty much the same rate it was rising before man figured out how to use fossil fuels to make his life less miserable with the Industrial Revolution.

How else to coerce people away from the inertia of using fossil fuels?

The campaign, called Power Past Impossible, touts the many uses of oil and natural gas and highlights how dependent modern life is on the byproducts of these fossil fuels.

We have shown how it's possible to use forward looking, quantitative metrics to compare multiple companies within the fossil fuel sector in our 2ºC of Separation report.

The story of humans and energy is a remarkable one: how fossil fuels were laid down over millions upon millions of years, what life was like before we were able to access them — then how we began to use them faster and faster, and how this led to the excess that resulted in today's consumer - focused, energy - intensive lifestyle.

Carbon Tracker's analysis shows how it's possible to use forward - looking, quantitative metrics to compare multiple companies within the fossil fuel sector.

In the present work, a multidisciplinary approach is used to examine how contributions of H2SO4 and MSA to particle formation will change in a large coastal urban area as anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions of SO2 decline.

We're taking natural materials — fossil fuels buried in the Earth, which took millions of years to form — and we're using them in a pretty unnatural way: burning them and releasing that hidden carbon back into the system in the form of CO2 so fast that the Earth doesn't know how to handle it.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

The CDIAC has told us how much CO2 we've added to the atmosphere since 1750 by burning fossil fuels, making cement, and changing land use (slash and burn etc.).

Using the latest available national data on power generation, this most recent look at data on annual and quarterly electricity generation nationwide from the Energy Democracy Initiative at ILSR illustrates how small - scale, distributed solar energy stacks up against its big, fossil fuel and utility - scale renewable energy competitors.

But if you use the argument that nuclear is too expensive because it is 12 % higher cost than fossil fuels, can you tell me how much more expensive is the synthetic biology fuel you are advocating than current fuel prices (delivered to the consumer)?

Because there would be no connection between how much a person pays in fees and the size of the rebate, there would be a strong incentive to use less fossil fuel in order to keep more of that money.

The research presents a distinct echo of an investigation of Exxon's climate record published by InsideClimate News almost two years ago, and casts significant new light on the duration and depth of industry's climate research — and how electric companies that use fossil fuels responded to the emerging science from the 1960's onward.

And how do we square this with the equally pressing need to reduce our use of fossil fuels?