Sentences with phrase «if known fossil fuels»

If all known fossil fuel reserves are used up, average global temperatures will rise by at least 10 degrees Celsius, a new study revealed.

Not exact matches

As he prodded the prime minister, Nye, best known as the host of the 1990s PBS show «Bill Nye the Science Guy,» and more recently for the Netflix series «Bill Nye Saves the World,» cited a study by a group called The Solutions Project that concluded Canada could live entirely without fossil fuels if it fully embraced renewable energy sources.

The initiative, known as Yasuní - ITT, failed to raise the necessary funds as northern Annex 1 countries balked at contributing to keeping fossil fuels in the ground — a strategy that is now a scientific imperative if the world is to meet its declared goal of avoiding a 2 °C rise in temperature.

If we know we need to set out on a path towards fossil fuel wind - down, then now is not the time to be investing in new infrastructure that aims towards ramp - up.

If you've got it, flaunt it — and your hair will remain perfect until the excess energy you used powering two hair dryers will hasten the world's expenditure of fossil fuels to the point where we can no longer afford the electricity to power hair dryers, and instead resort into walking into darkened caves full of bats and allowing the collective heat of their tiny nocturnal bodies to hasten the evaporation of our surplus hair water.

And some believe fossil fuel companies could be legally liable if they knew about climate change dangers but suppressed that information.

What in effect, we would be doing is displacing 300 oil - fired power plants and another 300 coal - fired power plants; so the land required for 600 fossil fuel power plants — if you are going to think that way, if you consider the whole system, which includes mining coal, which includes drilling for oil, the refining of all that, it's not just the power plant — that the land tradeoff actually gets to be fairly close, you know, the solar power plant is the footprint of the solar power and that's it.

There is always going to be some local need for fossil - based fuels, you know, in industrial processing or some things you just can't do with electricity, but by and large, right, if you wanted to try to replace those sorts of applications with biofuels and things like that, then you could be off oil altogether.

«It's very mysterious at this point in time, we don't really know what's contemplated there,» Fulton says, «If you piece together the different things that have been said by the president - elect about fossil fuels, and encouraging fossil fuel development, you'd expect this would have something to do with that.»

If fossil fuel actually carried the cost that, you know, of its damage that it does, then we'd see all these things happening more rapidly.

We are never going to go back to having 50 percent of America farming but we definitely need more than 1 percent of America farming if we're going to do [with] out vast quantities of fossil fuel, which we can no longer for many reasons continue to do, and I think that will be altogether healthy, and I think there'll be lots of people who will enjoy it immensely.

If Exxon could pinpoint the answer, it would know how long it had before CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere could force a transition away from fossil fuels.

CURWOOD: So, if I hear you correctly, Pat, you're saying perhaps the strong if not the strongest strategy here would be to be suing the federal government for selling off fossil fuels from public lands and waters at a time when the government knows that the combustion of those fuels is in the process of destroying the planet?

If climate scientists are still flying to conferences (except for Britain's Kevin Anderson), — and if I can't stop using fossil fuels, even knowing what I know, what hope is therIf climate scientists are still flying to conferences (except for Britain's Kevin Anderson), — and if I can't stop using fossil fuels, even knowing what I know, what hope is therif I can't stop using fossil fuels, even knowing what I know, what hope is there?

It's clear this is already happening and we can expect more op - eds in major newspapers from the likes of George Will, more full - page adverts from industry - funded propaganda mills masquerading as «conservative» think tanks, and more comments posted on every blog where global warming is discussed, denouncing the «vast liberal hoax» of anthropogenic global warming, because, you know, it's been proved that the earth isn't warming, and if it is, it has nothing to do with fossil fuels.

If you know that the total mass of fossil fuel emissions is roughly double the total annual atmospheric accumulation it's a little easier to realize that all the other possible explanations are besides the point, even if there is a little source here and a little sink therIf you know that the total mass of fossil fuel emissions is roughly double the total annual atmospheric accumulation it's a little easier to realize that all the other possible explanations are besides the point, even if there is a little source here and a little sink therif there is a little source here and a little sink there.

Also, if we are running out of fossil fuels anytime soon, we should know what the consequences are, don't you think?

It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.

The end of the fossil fuel era is at hand and there is no feasible way that alternative energy technologies can be ramped up (we don't even know if it can be scaled up) to meet the growing demand.

Regardless of reserve and resource uncertainties, we know there are enough fossil fuels to destroy the planet as we know it, if their CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

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.

If companies or individual building owners are serious about combating climate change and / or reducing carbon emissions then their is NO possible way to continue to use any form of combustion based, fossil fuel, systems of any kind!

As the western world depends on there continuing to be a good supply of fossil fuels from the Middle East and other parts of the developing world, there will always be a necessity to plan for all eventualities in this area (NOTE — I know the US purchases relatively little of its oil from the ME, but if this was not available there would be more competition for supplies from other sources).

By the way, if you want to know the cost of fossil fuel reduction, consider this.

If there's an excess coming into atmosphere not accounted for by ocean outgassing, or known land / biosphere emissions, or fossil fuels, or boosted northern forest growth (and decay), or permafrost melt, then it's necessary to look for it.

Ultimately, we need to know if technology not based on fossil fuels is bootstrappable.

For example, fossil fuels may have been used to supply power to the phone factory and then to transport the phone to the retailer and then if I drove out to the mall to buy it... well as you can imagine calculating the carbon footprint of an action can be challenging, but just being able to make informed decisions when choosing one activity over another is what's really important.For example, I knew that sending a text message would be greener than driving across town to share my news.

Common IPCC scenarios rely on an increasing supply of fossil fuels, yet we know that this is not possible and that production will soon peak (if not already) while prices rise in response, as they are doing already.

If the industry is in fact incentivized to maximize near - term profits, a large conflict of interest exists, since (as you know) investments in fossil fuel resources are typically (until recently) made years, if not decades before production, and often in different political, economic, and social contextIf the industry is in fact incentivized to maximize near - term profits, a large conflict of interest exists, since (as you know) investments in fossil fuel resources are typically (until recently) made years, if not decades before production, and often in different political, economic, and social contextif not decades before production, and often in different political, economic, and social contexts.

The problem is, the total known fossil fuel reserves being held would release 2,860 GtCO2 into the atmosphere if burned.

So if the fraction of lighter carbon isotopes in the atmosphere is increasing, we know the increase is due to burning plants and fossil fuels, and that is what scientists observe.

In any event, we no longer need to go slow: In the last few years, engineers have brought the price of renewables so low that, according to many experts, it would make economic sense to switch over even if fossil fuels weren't wrecking the Earth.

Of course this argument goes far more for fossil fuels and if the choice were simply between continued use of fossil fuels or a wholesale switch to nuclear then I have absolutely no doubt that the latter would be the preferable option.

They too argued that the world can consume no more than 20 % of known fossil fuel reserves if mankind is to survive which meant the reserves being carried on the books of Big Fossil were dangerously sub-fossil fuel reserves if mankind is to survive which meant the reserves being carried on the books of Big Fossil were dangerously sub-Fossil were dangerously sub-prime.

If Gelbspan and Gore knew that about those memo phrases, and knew this material was worthless from the start as evidence of a fossil fuel industry conspiracy, but maliciously pushed it anyway to destroy the character of skeptic scientists, it could be an actionable epic form of libel / slander.

If South Australia, Coober Pedy, King Island and the ACT can do this much, there can be no doubt that the remainder of Australia can do far more than is being done toward replacing fossil fuels with renewables.

In that post you seem to lose track of the main point of the thread: if the goal is to rapidly replace fossil fuel use with CO2 - free generating technology that is known to work reliably at known costs, then a strong nuclear program is the best option.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

And if we allow all known fossil fuels to be extracted from the ground and burned, the Arctic would warm an unimaginable 17 °F and push global temperatures up 8 °C.

So if we don't know the answer as to whether we even have an «AGW» problem, or whether the AGW, if any, is on balance beneficial or detrimental to our society overall, don't you think that it is a bit premature to dictate massive cuts in our fossil fuel consumption absent cheap, reliable replacements for it?

Methane and co2 levels have been many times higher in the past and even if the entirety of the Worlds know fossil fuel reserves where released into the atmosphere we still would not get back to those levels.

If he had not, how would anyone be able to determine when the larger public was genuinely swayed by skeptic scientists, and a necessity no longer existed for PR departments of the fossil fuel industry lobby to stage fake bouts of «citizen concern»?

Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know.

IF hemp were legalized, since hemp is SUPERIOR to other available natural resources, a few petrochemical monopolies would no longer be feasible... including monsanto's GMO cotton business that consumes HALF of the petrochemical pesticides sprayed in the USA, Hearst's deforestation business would no longer profit from destroying our forests, and we would no longer need Rockefeller's fossil fuels - because we can replace coal (electricity) with hemp pyrolysis, and we can replace gasoline with vegetable oil methanol, and dupont's toxic plastic business would be replaced with non-toxic, biodegradable, stronger, lighter, hemp plastics like they're already using to make Mercedes car parts.

When Prakash broke into a song of protest during a U.S. - sponsored panel of fossil fuel representatives at last year's United Nations Climate Conference, she didn't know if three people would join in, or 300.

Opponents also fear that if we rely on geoengineering solutions, people will no longer strive towards the main goal of dramatically reducing our reliance on the fossil fuels that are inexorably heating up the planet.

Epstein asks if everything we know about fossil fuels could be wrong, and suggests readers should «look at the big picture of fossil fuels»:

A recent estimate indicates that if we burn all the remaining known fossil fuel reserves the Antarctic ice sheet will essentially melt raising the oceans by 60 meters.

Well no because the object of the game isn't to save gas fossil fuels, but create green electricity credits, which is why the froggy won't come back if you don't like the shower head or globes afterwards.

If we take this path toward a clean energy future, we know we can stop the worst effects of global warming while reviving our economy, rescuing America from its dependence on fossil fuels, reducing pollution and threats to our health, protecting the natural resources that we depend upon for survival, and creating millions of good jobs right here at home.