Sentences with phrase «increased fossil fuel production»

A decrease in overall fossil fuel emissions is not inconsistent with continued or increased fossil fuel production by the most efficient producers.

And while President - elect Donald Trump has focused on increasing fossil fuel production, he has also promised to strengthen our economy and create millions of domestic jobs.

Not exact matches

That means making sure prices cover not only the direct costs of supplying energy but also the environmental externalities associated with production and use of fossil fuels — the waste water (which increases a variety of risks), and the broader side effects from vehicle use — congested roads, traffic deaths, and so on.

By employing fossil fuels to replace human labor, on the one hand, and by having each person perform limited repetitive operations, on the other, total production could be greatly increased.

But as human population expands and subsistence farming gives way to mechanized agriculture, food production has become reliant on fossil fuel and fertilizers to increase yield from rapidly shrinking farmland.

Solar is already competitive with conventional energy in many parts of Germany and will keep getting cheaper, while conventional fossil fuels are more likely to increase in production costs, Channell said.

That is why President Obama has fought hard to advance the policies that will reduce our reliance on oil and other fossil fuels, increase our production of clean energy and create good - paying jobs that can never be outsourced.

Trump has also promised to «lift restrictions on the production» of shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal — such a move would increase the market share of fossil - fuel power, and could drive emissions up.

A boom in domestic natural gas production, historically low prices, and increased scrutiny over fossil fuels» carbon emissions.

Searchinger's outlook is bleaker: He estimates that the rise in corn - based ethanol production in the United States would increase greenhouse gases, relative to what our current, fossil - fuel - based economy produces, for 167 years.

And that's just in the United States: as other countries increase energy production by incinerating fossil fuels, acid rain is on the rise.

Global energy - related emissions could peak by 2020 if energy efficiency is improved; the construction of inefficient coal plants is banned; investment in renewables is increased to $ 400 billion in 2030 from $ 270 billion in 2014; methane emissions are cut in oil and gas production and fossil fuel subsidies are phased out by 2030.

But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem).

Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.

The U.S. efforts abroad to tackle climate change have been counter-balanced by Trump's aggressive push at home to increase production of the fossil fuels scientists blame for global warming.

A constant fossil fuel production rate requires increasing energy input, but also use of more land, water, and diluents, with the production of more waste [142].

The rapid rate of climate change since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from changes in atmospheric chemistry, specifically increases in greenhouse gases due to increased combustion of fossil fuels, land - use change (e.g., deforestation), and fertilizer production (Forster et al. 2007).

Simply moving production of goods to countries much further than where the demand is only acts to increase the need to transport them a longer distance — which in turn also burns more fossil fuels.

But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem).

The idea that you could ever replace the rate of utilization of energy from fossil fuels, which has been estimated as consuming 400 years worth of photosynthesis per year, with a fraction of the annual photosynthetic harvest that does not impinge on food production is part of today's magical thinking, along with reducing deficits by cutting taxes while continuing to increase spending.

But as Kris notes, any increase in production leads to an increase in material use, and an increase in total energy consumption, mostly fossil fuels.

Or the evidence tying that increase to fossil fuel use, production of cement and other human activities?

There was some bad news for Drax recently as the UK government decided that biomass subsidies would not keep climbing as the «carbon price floor» — levied on fossil fuel production (and due to rise further)-- on electricity consumption has caused a backlash from manufacturers, consumer groups and energy suppliers who are concerned that the «tax will push up prices, make the UK uncompetitive and force the premature closure of coal - fired power plants, increasing the risk of blackouts.»

For the first time in our history, and just as demand is exploding across the globe, humanity will soon no longer be able to increase fossil - fuel production year - on - year.

Or does the current back - patting over increased domestic production ignore a bigger question: shouldn't we be curbing our reliance on fossil fuels altogether?

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.

Climate projections calculated in this paper indicate that the future atmospheric CO2 concentration will not exceed 610 ppm in this century; and that the increase in global surface temperature will be lower than 2.6 DegC compared to pre-industrial level even if there is a significant increase in the production of non-conventional fossil fuels.

As discussed last week, the Trump Administration can probably not achieve its promised economic revival without a substantial oil and gas production expansion and greatly increased exports of US fossil fuel production.

«Action taken to increase Australia's capacity for fossil fuel production — such as increasing export capacity or commissioning new coal mines — is difficult to reconcile with the goals of the Paris Agreement,» the report says.

Another gem is mentioning that not a word has come up in the presidential debates about global warming and in the last debate Romney and Obama were competing over who could increase domestic fossil fuel production faster and cheaper.

The global carbon accounting system that the Paris Agreement operates under counts emissions where they occur, so fossil fuel exporters like Australia can increase production with impunity, knowing the combustion emissions count elsewhere, and are not subject to their national commitments.

What they fail to understand is that their argument stems from a shortsighted view of a longer - running trend that started BEFORE widespread use of fossil fuel and BEFORE human CO2 production increased.

Focusing on the carbon emissions associated with tropical deforestation, it showed that converting rainforests or grasslands to corn, soybean, or palm oil biofuel production led to a carbon emissions increase — a «biofuel carbon debt» — that was at least 37 times greater than the annual reduction in greenhouse gases resulting from the shift from fossil fuels to biofuels.

In fact, it is the basis of his energy policy: All along, he has supported increased production of fossil fuels while implementing policies to reduce consumption of fossil fuels.

The anthropogenic input of fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere results in increased carbon dioxide (CO2) into the oceans, a process that lowers seawater pH, decreases alkalinity and can inhibit the production of shell material.

President Donald Trump is promising major changes on climate and energy policy, including efforts to increase production from fossil fuel energy sources such as coal.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

A constant fossil fuel production rate requires increasing energy input, but also use of more land, water, and diluents, with the production of more waste [142].

«Human - Generated Ozone Will Damage Crops, Reduce Production... MIT, 2007... A novel MIT study concludes that increasing levels of ozone due to the growing use of fossil fuels will damage global vegetation, resulting in serious costs to the world's economy.

It would seem downright irresponsible to increase taxpayer handouts to spur fossil fuel production at a time like this.

Today, Oil Change International released a comprehensive report on fossil fuel exploration and production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, andfossil fuel exploration and production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, and cfuel exploration and production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas,production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, andFossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, and cFuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas,Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas,production of oil, gas, and coal.

Much of the increase in the value of fossil fuel production subsidies in the U.S. can be attributed to the increase in oil and gas production in recent years, the report finds.

(1) No False Choices: To Preserve a Livable Climate, We Need to Slash Both CO2 and Methane ASAP; (2) Oil Change International Report: Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies Exceed $ 21 Billion Annually in United States, have increased by 45 % under Obama's «All of the Above» energy policy; (3) Joint Economic Committee Hearing on «The Economic Impact of Increased Natural Gas Production» (video); (4) Leaked Trade Deal Document Shows EU Pressuring U.S. to Lift Crude Oil Export Ban; (5) Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary - General Ban Kincreased by 45 % under Obama's «All of the Above» energy policy; (3) Joint Economic Committee Hearing on «The Economic Impact of Increased Natural Gas Production» (video); (4) Leaked Trade Deal Document Shows EU Pressuring U.S. to Lift Crude Oil Export Ban; (5) Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary - General Ban KIncreased Natural Gas Production» (video); (4) Leaked Trade Deal Document Shows EU Pressuring U.S. to Lift Crude Oil Export Ban; (5) Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary - General Ban Ki - Moon.

G7 countries must not misuse the Ukraine crisis to fast - track further fossil fuel development — including increased shale gas trade and development and to opening Europe's doors to tar sands, the dirtiest fossil fuel in commercial production.

From 1999 to 2005, global emissions from fossil fuel and cement production increased at a rate of roughly 3 % yr — 1.

Oil Change International Report: Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies Exceed $ 21 Billion Annually in United States — Fossil fuel subsidies have increased by 45 % under «All of the Above» energy poFuel Production Subsidies Exceed $ 21 Billion Annually in United States — Fossil fuel subsidies have increased by 45 % under «All of the Above» energy pofuel subsidies have increased by 45 % under «All of the Above» energy policy

Because of the variable, unpredictable, and uncontrollable nature of wind production, backup fossil - fuelled generation has to be run simultaneously to stabilize the grid on an increasing scale as more wind production is added.

This can occur through (1) relocation of energy - intensive production in non-constrained regions; (2) increased consumption of fossil fuels in these regions through decline in the international price of oil and gas triggered by lower demand for these energies; and (3) changes in incomes (thus in energy demand) because of better terms of trade.

We focus on the fossil fuel industry because we view the production and consumption of oil, gas and coal as sources of global warming, human rights abuses, war, national security concerns, corporate globalization, and increased inequality.

As power production from fossil fuels, particularly coal, comes under stricter regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the cost of producing power from those sources is likely to increase.