Sentences with phrase «if deep emissions»

However, such strategies, irrespective of their inherent merits, would only postpone the decarbonization needed in the power sector if deep emissions reductions proposed to 2050 are to be met.

Not exact matches

If your condition for GHG policy is that you must impose the same price on all sectors of the economy because you want to be cost - effective, that rules out higher prices on some sectors where deep emissions reductions are possible, or lower prices in more politically sensitive areas to ensure you get a policy in place at all.

If delivered in full and on time, the strategy will support deeper emissions cuts and the shift towards a low - carbon economy.

The acid test will come in 2015, when nations will meet in Paris to agree to limits on emissions beyond 2020 — when deep cuts will be needed if the planet is to have any chance of avoiding «dangerous» climate change.

The climate treaty being hammered out this month at The Hague may be doomed to failure, as numerous observers say the United States simply won't ratify any treaty that requires such wrenching reductions in carbon emissions, and if the United States bails out, the protocol is in very deep trouble.

One outcome emphasised by experts is that if society continues on the current high emissions trajectory, cold water coral reefs, located in the deep sea, may be unsustainable and tropical coral reef erosion is likely to outpace reef building this century.

Duncan Marsh, director of international climate policy at the Nature Conservancy, praised Indonesia's climate efforts and noted that the government said it can achieve the deeper end of its 29 - to -41-percent emissions curb by 2030 if it receives international finance.

By burying 60 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions deep underground, the 275 - megawatt FutureGen plant, to be built in Mattoon, Illinois, seeks to show that coal can be, if not exactly clean, then at least cleaner.

«If we are serious about climate change, the 10 per cent of the global population responsible for 50 per cent of total emissions need to make deep and immediate cuts in their use of energy — and hence their carbon emissions,» says Anderson.

The longevity of global warming (Fig. 9) and the implausibility of removing the warming if it is once allowed to penetrate the deep ocean emphasize the urgency of slowing emissions so as to stay close to the 500 GtC target.

If human - caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal - fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.

My own feel for this is that if we do not achieve global agreement and real action on deep cuts in emissions over the next 10 years or so we will get locked into an inappropriate fossil fuel infrastructure until at least mid-century, that will prevent us from capturing CO2 effectively.

Late last week, Stavins distributed a link to «Both Are Necessary, But Neither is Sufficient: Carbon - Pricing and Technology R&D Initiatives in a Meaningful National Climate Policy,» a defense of the primacy of a rising price on carbon if the goal is deep emissions cuts by mid-century.

There are other ways too - like how the Australian Gov. is insisting on deep emission reductions, if permission is to be granted for the giant Gorgon Field to be developed by Chevron Texaco and partners in 2009.

A more likely scenario if we do nothing is that emissions will continue at a rapid pace as oil from sand and shale plus coal substantially replace oil and natural gas, with the consequence that we will have dug ourselves into a deeper hole in terms of having sufficient resources to reduce emissions sufficiently without major disruption to our society.

[ANDY REVKIN notes: I also encourage you, if you haven't seen it already, to read today's report by James Kanter and Jad Mouawad showing deep flaws in Europe's system for capping (and trading) emissions of greenhouse gases.

According to the Center for Climate Strategies, if all 50 states adopted a set of 23 energy and climate policies (policies the Center identified in working with more than 1,500 stakeholders), they could cut emissions 27 % by 2020 compared to 1990 levels, about nine times deeper than the cuts the President has proposed.

Poor countries say industrial powers, which have spent a century or more benefiting from fossil fuels while adding billions of tons of heat - trapping greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, owe them both financial assistance in dealing with rising seas or shifting rains and a stable climate, which they say can be achieved only if rich countries commit to deep prompt cuts in their emissions.

First, we must commit to deep reductions in our own domestic emissions, and if these seem «unrealistically» stringent, we must realize that it is climate science itself and not the logic of fair burden sharing that requires such stringency.

Nithi Nesadurai, CAN Southeast Asia (CANSEA) Regional Coordinator, said: «COP23 set the momentum to ramp up ambition through the Tanaloa dialogue but the best results can be only achieved if deep and meaningful emission reductions take place before 2020, especially by the major industrialised countries.

We will need to see a deep decline if we are to limit dangerous climate change, and even with existing emissions - reduction commitments, global emissions are not expected to decline until at least after 2030.

The current total of 300 GtC human emissions adds less than 1 % to the carbon reservoir in the deep oceans, and ultimately that is all what returns if everything is back in equilibrium.

Moreover, as if discovering methane emissions from the deep seas of the Arctic isn't already of major concern, a recent study discovered immense amounts of methane locked under Antarctic ice: «They... calculated that the potential amount of methane hydrate and free methane gas beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet could be up to 4 billion metric tons, a similar order of magnitude to some estimates made for Arctic permafrost.

In the presence of such unknowns, a push for robustness tends to mean a push for deeper emissions cuts, even if those might turn out to cost more than actual climate sensitivity ultimately justifies.

If we stopped generating CO2 emissions today, the rate at which the oceans would return their excess CO2 into the atmosphere is governed by the overturning rate of the deep ocean, which as I said is roughly 500-1000 years.

If you have a short burst of CO2 emissions, not much makes it into the deep ocean, and the presence of the long tail stops being of interest from a policy perspective.

But it's also important that policymakers around the world understand that, even if we were to make deep and rapid emissions cuts, we would not see the difference those cuts made immediately.

Perhaps Mr McKibben's role is to act on a project by project basis, but I would expect both he and Dr. Hansen to see the big picture — if you want deep cuts to GHG emissions, you need a broad - based policy, not a hopelessly leveraged argument against a single project.

The mass outpourings of methane, 200 million years ago, could have been triggered by volcanoes pumping out CO2, the scientists think - a situation that may be repeated if man's CO2 emissions trigger a tipping point for today's frozen deep - sea methane.

If nations offer deeper, earlier emissions cuts at that time and continue progress, projected warming could be limited to 2 °C (3.6 °F), according to analysis by Climate Interactive and MIT Sloan.

Even its supporters conceded that the technology, if it worked, would have no impact on global emissions until at least the 2030s, well beyond the time scientists say deep emission cuts must begin.

However, if carbon emissions go on growing at 2 % a year (and during this century, they have grown faster), then those who are children now would have to commit to a costly technological answer based on the belief that carbon dioxide can be captured, compressed and stored deep underground.

The reasons why no country has done it yet are political — industries that don't have much future complain that if the government makes deep reductions in emissions, then the sky will fall in, jobs will be lost, the industry will move overseas etc etc..

The clear message from climate change scientists is that these sort of emissions cuts (if not deeper ones) are very much necessary.

If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century.

But if they are used instead to introduce deep income - tax cuts, we could actually grow our economy while reducing our emissions.