Sentences with phrase «immediate global reductions»

The scenario on the left assumes drastic and immediate global reductions in fossil fuel usage; the right assumes «business as usual» just continues.

Not exact matches

20 September, 2017 − New study says immediate reduction of fossil fuels combustion would help achieve the Paris Agreement's global warming target of well below 2 °C.

As a number of scientific articles have shown, most recently by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows in the Journal of the Royal Society, limiting the world to 2 °C warming most likely requires peaking total global carbon emissions in the next 5 - 10 years followed by immediate reductions to near - zero by 2050 (see Anderson and Bows emission trajectory options here, via David Roberts, and by David Hone here).

Citing the «unprecedented and unanticipated» effects of global warming, the scientists, including six Nobel prizewinners, presented a letter calling for an immediate reduction in US carbon emissions.

New study says immediate reduction of fossil fuels combustion would help achieve the Paris Agreement's global warming target of well below 2 °C.

Catalyze immediate, urgent and drastic emission reductions: «In line with what science and equity require, deliver urgent short - term actions, building towards a long - term goal that is agreed in Paris, that shift us away from dirty energy, marking the beginning of the end of fossil fuels globally, and that keep the global temperature goal in reach.»

The only question that needs to be examined to trigger a responsibility to begin to make immediate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is whether the nation is exceeding its fair share of safe global emissions.

Without countries that champion CCS deploying it at scale, neither other developed economies (e.g., Germany, Poland) nor developing economies (e.g., China, India) are under much pressure to deploy CCS, even for coal — especially when there is no economic incentive or immediate global GHG emission reduction imperative to drive it.

You may wonder why the government finds the need to pursue such action since 1) U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have already topped out and have generally been on the decline for the past 7 - 8 years or so (from technological advances in natural gas extraction and a slow economy more so than from already - enacted government regulations and subsidies); 2) greenhouse gases from the rest of the world (primarily driven by China) have been sky - rocketing over the same period, which lessens any impacts that our emissions reduction have); and 3) even in their totality, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have a negligible influence on local / regional / global climate change (even a immediate and permanent cessation of all our carbon dioxide emissions would likely result in a mitigation of global temperature rise of less than one - quarter of a degree C by the end of the century).

We know that addressing climate change through reduction in fossil fuel use will lead to cleaner air and water, to immediate health benefits for Americans, and will help to limit global climate change.