Sentences with phrase «less fossil fuels in»

«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.

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.

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» emissionIn 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» emissionin 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.