Because there would be no connection between how much a person pays in fees and the size of the rebate, there would be a strong incentive to use
less fossil fuel in order to keep more of that money.
«If the past 35 years is any guide, not only should we not expect to run out of fossil fuels any time soon, we should not expect to have
less fossil fuels in the future than we do now.
Not exact matches
That logic is another reason why OPEC countries have
less of an incentive to cut back production: renewable energy sources is starting to give
fossil fuels some serious competition, and oil - exporting countries have an interest
in keeping oil a cheap alternative.
Solar power still amounts to
less than 1 % of the nation's electrical - generating capacity — coal produces about 40 % — and its proportion will stay
in the low single digits until it becomes cheaper than
fossil fuels.
Even though it's considered the dirtiest of
fossil fuels and as a result is being burned
less in many developed countries, there's no way that it would suddenly stop being used.
Increases
in the price of
fossil fuels since 1979 have meant that
less has been burned and
less carbon dioxide has been added to the atmosphere.
Even more, lighter - weight flexible packaging results
in less transportation - related energy and
fossil fuel consumption, and environmental pollution.
Consumer products companies interested
in increasing the sustainability of their beverages and using
less fossil fuel for shipping will want to consider adding this powder - filled beverage option.
Many of the same warnings Mario Cuomo heard
in the 1980s about Shoreham are the same ones his son hears today from supporters of Indian Point: Closing a nuclear plant will result
in blackouts, a
less reliable electric grid and increased air pollution as
fossil fuels are burned to replace the lost emissions - free nuclear power; customers could face higher bills; more than 1,000 jobs will be lost, and tax revenue for schools and towns will dissipate.
One could frame the debate
in the advantages of using
less fossil fuel, which range from lower costs to people (an all electric car has operating costs about 1/4 that of a gasoline vehicle), to balance of payments (
less capital flowing out of the country, especially relevant to countries who import most of their oil), to terrorism (not funding it, and western influence leaving the ME, which is the basis of most ME terrorist organizations) to conflict
in general (most of the major conflicts
in the last 30 years have involved ME oil), to finite supply (when we run out, we'll be facing a global economic meltdown).
The replacement not only has to be green, it has to be
less expensive than
fossil fuel, or enough short sighted people will go to the polls and vote
in legislators to restore their lower power bills.
«Plasmas have been considered by many as a way to make ammonia that is not dependent on
fossil fuels and had the potential to be applied
in a
less centralized way,» said William Schneider, H. Clifford and Evelyn A. Brosey Professor of Engineering, affiliated member of ND Energy and co-author of the study.
Technological innovations have dropped the price of wind and solar
in some markets to be not only competitive with traditional
fossil fuel power generation, but sometimes
less expensive, said Malcolm Woolf, senior vice president of policy and government affairs for Advanced Energy Economy.
But
in November and December 2005, wind power
in Colorado cost
less than electricity from
fossil fuel, and the average household that switched to wind saved $ 4 a month on its electric bill.
Growing crops
in city skyscrapers would use
less water and
fossil fuel than outdoor farming, eliminate agricultural runoff, and provide fresh food
«There is a potential risk that if you cool the planet by albedo modification, it could provide
less incentive to reduce reliance on
fossil fuels,» says Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist, current editor -
in - chief of Science and chair of a committee that evaluated climate intervention techniques for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
But those barbs have been largely absent, perhaps
in part because the price of gasoline is low, giving traditional Republican attacks around Democrats»
fossil fuel policies
less momentum, Taylor said.
In a
fossil fuel - fired generator, this means
less carbon dioxide emissions for the same unit of electricity produced.
For researchers who specialize
in batteries, though, the drive for a better battery is
less about the luxury of an always - charged iPad (though that would be nice) and more about kicking our
fossil fuel habit.
Conventional
fossil fuel takes millions of years to form, but a determined niche of modern alchemists are vastly accelerating the process to brew biocrude, a
fuel similar to petroleum that is produced
in less than two months from agricultural or municipal waste.
McKibben: No, exactly, and so the question becomes
in effect, my sense is that all of this will happen more or
less logically; that it flows from the physics and chemistry of the world that we're moving into, just like the centralized world floating logically from the physics and chemistry of
fossil fuel.
In the meantime many contracts are being signed for electricity from solar energy at
less than half the price of electricity from
fossil fuels, even on an unsubsidized basis.
THE Paris climate agreement, sealed last December, was a first
in many respects: the first truly international climate change deal, with promises from both rich and poor nations to cut emissions; the first global signal that the age of
fossil fuels must end; the first time world leaders said we should aim for
less than 2 °C of warming.
Realistic large - scale solar panel coverage could cause
less than half a degree of local warming, far
less than the several degrees
in global temperature rise predicted over the next century if we keep burning
fossil fuels.
The shift back to
fossil fuels, combined with rapid growth
in the number of cars on the roads (see «
Fuelling Brazil's transport boom»), has worsened city smog and caused emissions
in the transport sector to spike at about 170 million tons of CO2
in 2011, up from
less than 140 million tons
in 2008.
One of my worst fears is that the industrial world will turn to
less efficient
fossil fuel sources to maintain current levels of economic activity resulting
in an accelerated release of CO2.
The World Energy Outlook 2016, released last week, is just one among an increasing line of studies showing how nations need to slow and, ultimately, phase out investment
in new
fossil fuel supply infrastructure — from oil fields and pipelines to coal mines — if they are serious about keeping warming to 2C or
less.
Recent expansions
in green renewable power and carbon offset credits enabled us to convert and transfer our previous dependency on non-renewable energy sources such as
fossil fuels and nuclear to a more sustainable and
less harmful energy source.
This suits me just fine since I train
in small sessions throughout the day and I can't be bothered with using the car to get to the gym all the time (As an added advantage I consume
less fossil fuel these days thus reducing the size of my carbon footprint on the planet.
But
in any event, we are now forced to consume and spend
less because debt from now on is going to be harder to get, and we are also forced to use
less fossil fuels because they are already too expensive.
For instance, if more effective cars only use 70 % of
fuel, the portion of
fossil sources for energy use is adjusted down to 80 %, smart planning and collaboration results
in 4 people
in each car (say 30 %), and a «smart» organization of the working week means
less commuting (80 %; TGIT), then combined effect of this can
in theory give a reduction by 0.7 x 0.8 x 0.3 x 0.8 = 0.13.
I would dare humanity to live
in a world where are the
fossil fuel energy is instead produced by nuclear power: our «date with destiny» would be just around the corner;
in less than geologic time.
... Based on these results, further warming and drying of tropical forests is expected to result
in less uptake and more release of carbon on land, unfortunately amplifying the effect of
fossil fuel emissions warming the climate.
The transition from deeply rooted energy systems based on burning
fossil fuels to new norms emitting ever
less of this gas — here and
in China — is seen by many as requiring a sustained energy quest including much greater direct government investment on the frontiers of relevant technologies (batteries, photovoltaics, superconductivity, photosynthesis).]
In the meantime, the world's poorest two or three billion people, emitting less than one ton of carbon dioxide per person per year (compared to the 20 tons per - capita average of the United States), could be propelled out of poverty with additional fossil fuel use without substantially interfering with efforts to rein in the richest populations» emission
In the meantime, the world's poorest two or three billion people, emitting
less than one ton of carbon dioxide per person per year (compared to the 20 tons per - capita average of the United States), could be propelled out of poverty with additional
fossil fuel use without substantially interfering with efforts to rein
in the richest populations» emission
in the richest populations» emissions.
An Apollo type national R&D program will convert this country from
fossil fuel energy economy to a hydrogen one
in less than 10 years.
More than a few times, Indian diplomats and officials have told me they bristle every time they see India lumped with China
in discussions of obligations to eschew
fossil fuels, given that India's per - capita energy use is
less than a third that of China.
The energy storage density
in these solutions is much
less than
fossil fuels and with what energy source do you manufacture the H2?
It would be cheaper for me to have my sewer ending
in my backyard, if I didn't mind the stench and disease and expense accompanying that economic choice;
fossil fuel pollution is a little
less obvious so we've been able to ignore it more easily until now.
Just like the Europeans have managed to use 50 %
less fossil fuels than we do to create their equally good lifestyles, Californians have lead the nation
in living the good life on
less electricity.
No
fossil fuels,
less inconvenience, minimal changes
in infrastructure.
This would serve multiple purposes, of (a) weaning us from dependence on foreign oil and simultaneously depleting terror - exporting countries of their revenue stream, (b) reducing other pollutants besides CO2, (c) encouraging a more gradual and
less economically disastrous transition from an economony based on a finite resource, (d) slow global warming, (e) move us
in the direction of a VAT tax rather than an income tax (actually, personally I don't think e is such a great thing, but as many conversative groups favor it, I don't see why they would oppose a revenue - neutral tax on
fossil fuels.
The cap and dividend does not
in the review provided emphasize moving companies via economic forcing toward
less fossil fuel usage
in a positive fashion.
If only that much people (one out of ten) could manage to have a really decent life, yet, with (and historically only once was) «easy»
fossil fuel energy source available, is it reasonable to expect that 10 times more people will manage to do so
in future without that exceptional source of energy and much
less «easy» renewable energy sources?
Moving on to assess the influence of
fossil fuel emissions during this same period, it's important to stress that literally all investigators acknowledge that both the level of AGW and the rate of increase were far
less at that time than what we see
in the latter part of the century.
Needless perhaps to say, many of these folks are
in the
fossil fuel business, or other businesses benefiting from
less environmental protections.
At least I have given some commentary, and I think about 2 % globally is ok medium term, but
less in western countries, and more
in poor countries, and it needs to be certain types of growth (eg not use of
fossil fuels or massive quantities of fertilisers and the like).
Now what we can do is 1) develop a sustainable energy economy 2) a) burn all the coal and other
fossil fuels, buying us, if we make optimistic assumptions, perhaps a century of ever more elaborate schemes to meet energy needs with
less and
less suitable sources b) THEN
in a severely degraded environment
One of my worst fears is that the industrial world will turn to
less efficient
fossil fuel sources to maintain current levels of economic activity resulting
in an accelerated release of CO2.
And if the climate movement can keep pressuring the the government, banks and universities to invest
in the future and divest from
fossil fuels, it seems inevitable that we'll be burning
less coal
in the coming years, whether President Obama has officially waged a War on Coal or not.