Sentences with phrase «means less carbon emissions»

«It sequesters carbon in the soil, meaning less is emitted into the atmosphere, and fewer passes in the field means less carbon emissions associated with fossil fuel.

But cleaner transport also means less carbon emissions, both because buses are cleaner, less fuel intensive per passenger mile, and because people are actually leaving their cars for the faster buses.

Not exact matches

But while that is a crucial national conversation, the heated pipeline debate sometimes means we pay a lot less attention to the kinds of things we should build in Canada if we're serious about reducing carbon emissions.

Organic foods are also locally sourced and produced, which means there is less carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.

But if humans, through carbon dioxide emissions, are affecting climate less than we think, would that mean we may have more time to reduce the harmful effects?

In a fossil fuel - fired generator, this means less carbon dioxide emissions for the same unit of electricity produced.

GM crops that tolerate herbicides deserve some praise: They help minimize mechanical weed removal, which means less soil erosion, more carbon stored in the soil and fewer carbon emissions from tilling equipment making trips across fields, scientists noted in 2012 in a special issue of Weed Science focused on herbicide - resistance management.

To stick within the two degree target, this means the budget for carbon dioxide emissions ends up being less than the original 1000 billion tonnes.

Reducing our carbon emissions by 80 per cent isn't going to mean we just do or have 80 per cent less stuff — we need to focus on doing things differently, or doing different things.

And remember, energy is far from the dominant component of the economy, and phasing in a 50 or 75 % reduction in carbon emissions doesn't mean a 50 to 75 % reduction in energy usage — still less a 50 to 75 % reduction in productive use of energy, given likely efficiency gains.

It would also mean the damages resulting from carbon dioxide emissions would be less for every ton of CO2 emitted (~ 20 tons of CO2 annually per capita in the US).

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.

But it's not clear what that exactly means — whether businesses will have to immediately start buying carbon allowances to cover their emissions, or some lesser form of regulation, like requiring companies to report their emissions.

Less coal means less carbon dioxide, so the impact on emissions could be enormLess coal means less carbon dioxide, so the impact on emissions could be enormless carbon dioxide, so the impact on emissions could be enormous.

But low gas prices and the emergence of SMR meant this technology became less fashionable during an era when carbon emissions were not a consideration.

Given historical climate and physics, the only way that implicit endorsement means «implicitly endors [ing] that humans are a cause of warming» where «a» is something less than primary (that is, over half) is if there is some as - yet undiscovered sink absorbing human CO2 emissions and, simultaneously, an as - yet undiscovered source of CO2 that is releasing it into the atmosphere - and moreover, the CO2 from this mysterious source just happens to possess a carbon isotope signature that matches fossil fuel CO2 as a total coincidence.

A high enough carbon price would incentivise more efficiency and level the playing field for other, less polluting means of transport, such as railways, thus reducing overall emissions.

We must also take action on carbon dioxide emission and that will mean significant adjustments to our economies: more efficient power stations, cars which use less fuel, better - insulated houses and better management of energy in general.

If all you want to do is implement a less stringent alternative like the Ceres Clean Trillion plan, which will yield ~ 1.5 % non-compounded annual reductions in emissions for decades, and give you an 80 % chance of staying below 2 C (based on models that do not include the major carbon feedbacks, which means an underestimation of the danger), recognize that you are proposing entre into a regime that has been described as Extremely Dangerous.

Going all out on the hard front end emissions reductions provides these reductions when needed most and also means less low carbon technologies need to be implemented as replacements, thereby reducing the carbon expenditures that will be required for the implementation.

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.

This means that the amount of wood that is cut down is significantly less than the amount of trees that are grown, preventing deforestation and reducing carbon emissions from processing.