Sentences with phrase «if real carbon»

Not exact matches

I think the pipeline proxy debate unfortunately has real legs, if you're sitting 30,000 feet above and you're asking what's the most effective way for Canada to reduce its carbon footprint.

Carrasco's flair down the left flank and favourite No10 shirt would make him a carbon - copy replacement for fellow Belgian Eden Hazard, if the 25 - year - old was to get his dream move to Real Madrid in the near future.

«It's absolutely clear that if the government did try to significantly water down the fourth carbon budget there would be a real controversy in parliament.»

Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Huhne says carbon offsetting must be more than just a fashion statement if it is to have a real positive effect on climate change.

It's not clear what, if anything, this can teach us about real molecules, but Pine already has an application in mind: linking up several surrogate carbon atoms to create a «semiconductor» for light.

«If in fact he wants a more carbon - restrained energy policy, he ought to work with real scientists and work with Congress to come up with a better one.»

You really do feel the benefits of its lean carbon fiber physique compared to rivals like the R8 because it changes direction so cleanly, rides with such poise and fires along the straights with a real ferocity if you wring the engine right out.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, the skeptical environmentalist himself, Bj ¯ rn Lomborg, recently revealed a devastating analysis of the EV's real carbon footprint: «If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles in its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar - size gasoline - powered car driven the same number of miles.»

And like his counterparts that worked on the interior, Harlan says that «in the car, if you see carbon fiber, it's real.

If you are looking for a way to change the entire look of your C7 Corvette Stingray's engine bay then look no further than these real carbon fiber fuel rail covers.

Even if the Princeton wedges of avoided emissions were achievable, that would only stabilize annual emissions, meaning the real heavy lifting — stabilizing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — still lay far ahead.

RECs can be associated with real carbon reductions if there is a carbon cap in place.

I've always thought that CCS was an inelegant way to lick the carbon problem — because it involves burning fuels and then corralling a huge mass of pollution rather than avoiding the pollution in the first place — but if gas is to be a real «bridge» to a low emission future rather than a nice - looking dead end then we must seriously explore ways to further cut emissions from gas plants.

The Kyoto Protocols to the FCCC, and the Clean Development Mechanism (which allows rich countries to burn coal and oil if they pay poor countries to plant trees, and so is neither clean nor results in development), only made things worse, CDM only gives credit for planting trees, which are only at best a temporary reservoir and not a real stink, while they ignore ALL the real long term carbon sinks.

His video illustrates what carbon dioxide emissions from human activities would look like if you could watch the gas volume accumulate in front of you in real - time.

People have ignored the fact that when we started «contributing» CO2 at such an accelerated rate we were already at the «local maximum» of the carbon / ice age cycle (Link: / / en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png) What Hansen is saying is the only real choice if we don't want to radically change the planet's climate.

In other words — by 2014 we'd used more of the carbon budget than any of the RCPs had anticipated and if we are not confident that the real world is cooler than the models at this level of cumulative emissions, this means that available emissions for 1.5 degrees should decrease proportionately.

If there's going to be a market for carbon, then the market's going to have to have confidence that what an investor is buying is actually a real asset, and that the carbon is being sequestered in a stand of forest.

That's why there is no sound in the AGW world because to get carbon dioxide to «accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years» they had to make it an ideal gas not a real gas — if you don't know the difference you can't see what they've done.

Fifth, even if real scientific investigation (which doesn't stop with modeling but tests models by empirical observation) could tell us that, say, falling 50 % short of net zero «carbon» emissions would raise GAT by, say, 3 ° C and that that, in turn, would cause significant harms, that wouldn't tell us how we ought to respond.

If we were certain that the ensemble mean warming represents the real climate systemt we could read out from figure 1c at which cumulative carbon emission we could expect to cross this threshold.

The only real risk is that modern Western countries will damage their economies and the welfare of their citizens by altering their energy generation and distribution systems in the ways advocated by the alarmists, and if successful, will starve plants of the carbon dioxide they need during the next ice age and stunt their potential growth in the meantime.

So if there is a real, though unquantifiably small, possibility of catastrophic climate change, and if we would ideally want some technological hedges as insurance against this unlikely scenario, and if raising the price of carbon to induce private economic actors to develop the technologies would be an enormously more expensive means of accomplishing this than would be advisable, then what, if anything, should we do about the danger?

Don't bother trying to offset the impact though, firstly in eight years you've saved up some «credits» and secondly it's only about assuaging guilt (even if the carbon is real)-- better to do it with a clean conscience and instead channel your energy into changing something in your life, however small.

Joining the RGGI would, among other things, attach a real — if currently small — value to Hawaii's carbon emissions.

«It will be a win - win if we can demonstrate through our pilot projects that the carbon market can provide alternate revenue streams to help local farmers and landowners adopt practices that will improve water quality in addition to achieving real greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits.»

If the above properties of the carbon cycle are real and enduring, then it is likely that bringing future emissions to zero would not reduce temperatures except in the very long term.

... if annual emissions average 11 GtC this century, we risk the real, terrifying prospect of seeing 1,000 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere....

It isn't going to be easy, particularly since the emerging carbon markets are threatened on one side by Enronization and phalanxes of quick - buck artists, and on the other by eager politicians, who hope now, above all, for «efficiency» and easy cash, even if they come without real decarbonization.

I remain astonished at the fervour with which greens like Mark defend wind power at all costs, despite growing evidence that it does real environmental harm, rewards the rich at the expense of the poor and does not cut carbon dioxide emissions significantly if at all.

However the carbon market is real (even in the U.S. where carbon is traded on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX)-RRB- and it is likely that avoided deforestation will be incorporated as an emissions offset during the next UN round, especially if projects are proving that it is viable.

So if someone wants to build a home that is an energy hog, maybe they should be free to do so — if we can find a way to make them pay for the real cost — including utility infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, carbon and environmental mitigation.

I would be in favor of a gradual tax increase on carbon if I knew it meant there was a real solution in the form of nuclear, electric cars, and new technology in renewables.

The message of the latest IPCC report is clear: Climate change is real and caused by humans, and we will see far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts if we do not reduce global carbon emissions.

Last would be things like global carbon markets, capture and storage, and as a last resort — different types of geoengineering, which not only are extremely expensive and have no benefits if AGW is not both real and catastrophic.

It might be that someone is very afraid that if we start getting real accurate satellite data that it's going to bust the AGW religious business and carbon trading schemes worldwide.

I'm not sure if you are convinced than carbon - o - geddon is really looming or if you have other financial interests or whatever, but enough people know that we face no real threat and we're not going to let you bamboozle the public into disastrous changes to the world's energy infrastructure or let you impose draconian «carbon reduction» schemes that would cripple the world's industrial economies, reduce our standard of living and condemn the people in developing countries to perpetual low energy poverty.

If «real» — it shows that the major cause of late century warming was not carbon dioxide.

If Chevron, or any named Big Oil codefendant can show that the externalities of CO2 emissions are of net benefit, could they countersue entities that have suppressed CO2 emission, or benefited from CO2 emissions, & thereby place liens & seize the assets of companies selling carbon credits, or of any tangible real property associated with past ill - gotten carbon taxation & regulation?

Billions of humans staying drier and warmer without chasing fewer and fewer animals for their skins: a real social benefit (ugh) of carbon, if you like such terms.

So if we are really serious about doing something real about stopping a carbon tax then the keynote speaker should be John Nicol.

Experience with the voluntary carbon market shows REDD projects can lead to real reductions, if only a portion of avoided emissions is tradable, it factors in the total deforestation in a jurisdiction and creates a buffer for uncertainty.

That's a real benefit worth paying for (more than fancy wheels, in my opinion), and it would be worth even more if we put a reasonable price on carbon emissions.

If you're confused about where to go to compensate for you carbon - spewing lifestyle — and pretty much every one of us could use to do that a bit more — you can rest assured that anyone of the 11 projects EDF has selected is the real deal.

And no, the argument that we should be kind to the envrionment anyway so why worry if AGW is not a real threat, is just not a good enough excuse to hand western governments free reign on dragonian carbon taxation strategies; the Bio-fuel scandal should convince anyone of that...

The paper urged policymakers to exercise caution when considering carbon regulations and warned that if «climate change regulation proceeds unchecked, it will likely produce policy that is out of touch with both the real world and objective science.»

These campaigns always pretend to offer inspiration about we can do in America if we set our minds and hearts to it, but in fact the real message is what we can't do: we can't power America without coal, we can't keep our lights on without destroying Appalachia, and most important of all, we can't pass meaningful carbon legislation without wrecking the American economy.

Explore is a sort of Canadian Outside Magazine and its content is unfortunately not available online, silly because they are so proud of saving 200,000 pounds carbon by printing on 100 % recycled paper and could save a lot more if they sold it by the byte, and real shame, as this is a shocking and important article.

«Climate change is going to be uncontrollable if we can't get carbon - free electricity... Environmental groups need to look at the real world.»

A business guide to insetting has also been produced, with Paul Comey of Sustainable Food Lab quoted as saying: «When you realise that you're spending real money on carbon offsets, you start to wonder if you can spend that same money to strengthen your supply chain.»