In certain jurisdictions, energy generation is a major source of carbon emissions, so switching to renewable energy sources like solar and wind will
mean less greenhouse gas emissions.
Polar ocean is sucking up less carbon dioxide Windy waters may
mean less greenhouse gas is stored at sea.
On the other hand, the fact that we're transitioning from coal to natural gas
means less greenhouse gases.
Not exact matches
And of course, the gain
means less oil consumed and fewer
greenhouse gases emitted.
More
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere
means less heat escaping and a warming planet.
«That
means less land use, feedstock, nutrients,
greenhouse gases, excretion — all positive effects on the environment.»
Reducing the need for paper products
means less demand for tree cutting — this prevents deforestation, protects wildlife habitats, reduces pollution and other negative effects of paper industry, the third - largest industrial emitter of
greenhouse gasses.
That
means, in turn,
less land required to grow the feed for animals, lower
greenhouse gas emissions, and
less water pollution.
Less heavy to transport, meaning less transport cost and less greenhouse gasses produced from transp
Less heavy to transport,
meaning less transport cost and less greenhouse gasses produced from transp
less transport cost and
less greenhouse gasses produced from transp
less greenhouse gasses produced from transport;
This
means that there will be
less ocean plants to uptake this
greenhouse gas, which worsens the overall problem, Behrenfeld said.
Conservatives should embrace a carbon tax (a much
less costly
means of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions) in return for elimination of EPA regulatory authority over
greenhouse gas emissions, abolition of green energy subsidies and regulatory mandates, and offsetting tax cuts to provide for revenue neutrality.
JimD, «This slower rate of warming — relative to climate model projections —
means there is
less urgency to phase out
greenhouse gas emissions now»
And emissions reductions are much
less valuable (to this administration),
meaning that any
greenhouse gas regulation will be
less beneficial.
-- Yes, it may be correct in so far as they can say that; «around 10 % of the wavebands emitted by IR radiation are made up of wave - lengths that can not be absorbed by «
Greenhouse Gases» (GHGs), but that can not possibly
mean that 0.04 %, in the case of CO2 concentration but certainly
less than 10 % of the Atmosphere as a total has got what must be a «supernatural» ability to stop LWR.
In fact, the average resident of Manhattan uses much
less energy, and has a much smaller carbon footprintAmount of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases that a person, community, industry, or other entity contributes to the atmosphere through energy use, transportation, and other
means.
Our assessment of the future risk from the continued build up of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is even
less informed by 20th century changes in global
mean temperature.
While
less meat gets wasted than does fruit and vegetables, the amount of energy required to produce meat is «significantly» more than that for plant - based food production, which
means that the associated
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from meat production is also much higher, leading researchers to indicate that meat waste has a «greater negative environmental impact.»
If each province in China was to declare itself an independent country tomorrow — each producing much
less greenhouse gasses than the whole of China — would this
mean that all of the new states would have a much reduced responsibility to lessen their
greenhouse gas production rates?
This
means that the impact of
greenhouse gases can accumulate and intensify over time, while the aerosol effects become comparatively
less important on longer time scales due to the accumulation of carbon dioxide.