Sentences with phrase «meant less emissions»

This has been caused in part by the recession as the resultant decrease in industrial output also meant less emissions.

Efforts by others would have encouraged the EU to up this goal to 30 %, meaning less emissions allowances would have been allocated in the first place.

In a nutshell, closing down coal fired power plants means less emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx and fine particulate matter.

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.

It provides the greatest cube efficiency, and its light weight allows a truckload to cube out before it weighs out — meaning that every available inch of space is optimally utilized, minimizing freight and handling costs with fewer trucks, less fuel, and lower 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.

That may sound like great news — but it doesn't mean that the world is warming at a slower rate or that the need to reduce emissions has become less urgent, the researchers warn.

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.

Because photons released into the atmosphere take energy with them, Miller said it was previously understood that greater photon emission meant less energy efficiency.

More CO2 emissions mean greater temperatures, more deserts, and less food.

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.

To keep to 350 ppm, which already means a long - term warmer world, we may have to go to zero or less - than - zero human emission levels.

That means, in turn, less land required to grow the feed for animals, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and less water pollution.

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.

Besides outstanding thermal efficiency, diesels» low overall emissions «profile» means less reliance on expensive, deterioration - prone exhaust aftertreatment strategies.

It means a cut of around # 3.5 k over the previous, V8 - endowed S4 which had less torque, slower accelaration and was far heavier on emissions and fuel consumption.

In order to meet the forthcoming CO2 emission specifications without losses in terms of torque and performance, there are two central trends when it comes to combustion units: downsizing (which means turbocharged engines with fewer cylinders and less engine displacement); and downspeeding, which is the reduction of the engine speeds combined with a maximum torque that is applied at a very early stage.

Less slippery aerodynamics mean the bluffer and higher - riding C - HR can't match the Prius for economy and CO2 emissions, but Toyota's claims of 74.3 mpg and 87g / km put it ahead of traditional diesel rivals such as the Nissan Qashqai 1.5 dCi and SEAT Ateca 1.6 TDI.

That means less fuel is consumed and lower emissions generated, including a 25 - percent drop in cold - start hydrocarbon emissions.

The arithmetic of the small remaining emission quota means that the more China emits, the less others can emit.

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.

This has implications for future scenario's, as a lower sensitivity for CO2 (and a higher for solar) means that there will be less warming for the same CO2 emissions (assuming no large excursions of solar).

What I meant was that Planck radiation increases with body or amb ient temperature, but higher temperature, per the Boltzmann distribution, makes it more probable that rotation, vibration, and / or electronic levels will be excited, and therefore less likely to emit relaxation energy, though as you point out this may not be exactly what happens physically — emission radiation is more flat than anything with increasing temperatures.

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.

The thermal inertia lag is nontrivial — it means that current temperature is less than the equilibrium temperature expected from current forcing by a factor of tau * g, where tau = time constant of thermal inerta and g = growth rate of emissions.

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.

That may mean that some of the highest estimates of future temperature rises, of more than 6C within several decades, are less likely, but it does not let the world off the hook — warming of more than 2C is still highly likely on current high emissions trends, and that would cause severe consequences around the world.

Increased efficiency is achieved by means of a longer trading period (8 years instead of 5 years), a robust and annually declining emissions cap (21 % reduction in 2020 compared to 2005) and a substantial increase in the amount of auctioning (from less than 4 % in phase 2 to more than half in phase 3).

Further, increased human - caused CO2 emissions mean more energy use, which results in more human productivity since humans generally use fossil fuel energy to increase their productivity and reduce their dependency on other less reliable and higher cost energy sources.

Once the radiation limits begin to be increased this should have a catalytic effect on reducing emissions: 1) it will mean radiation leaks are understood to be less dangerous that currently thought > less people evacuated from effected zones > reduced cost accident of accidents — reduced accident insurance cost; 2) population takes another look at the effects of radiation > gains an understanding it is much less harmful than they thought > fear subsides > less opposition > easier and less expensive to find sites supported by the people nearby > planning and sight approval costs come down over time

Analyst Mark Lewis of Kepler Cheuvreaux, a Swiss private bank, calculates that to meet emissions targets that could cap global warming at 2 degrees Celsius will mean lost fossil - fuel revenues of no less than $ 28 trillion (PDF) in the coming two decades.

Reducing fossil fuel emissions to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less means that a huge amount of proven fossil fuel reserves will need to stay in the ground.

Unfortunately, more regulation could mean less — less fracking, less energy and, quite possibly, less progress in reducing emissions.

That is an incredible bit of hand - waving there, and completely contradicted by the basic math — atmospheric concentration increase has been less than our emissions for about the last 60 + years, meaning nature is acting as a net sink over that period.

This means that at current demand levels we need to burn roughly 70 % less gas if we are to stay in this emissions intensity range.

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.

Culturally appropriate improved cookstoves are more efficient and require less wood, which means fewer emissions, healthier air, and saving women time.

Part of this shift has meant that high - emissions activities, such as the production of raw materials and intermediate goods, are moving from rapidly developing countries like China and India to lesser developed countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam, a move that could have serious consequences for the success of the Paris agreement.

Phil The time spent by an individual molecule in a particular state is extremely small at atmospheric conditions, orders of magnitude less than the mean radiative lifetime which is why emission is extremely unlikely, and most of the energy ends up thermalized.

Whatever value of CS you fancy, according to the reality this is the higher CO2 emission - concentration year for the last 10,000 years with an amount of warming that makes this year with the less ever «amplifying» of warming, meaning that the 2014 regardless of so much CO2 in atmosphere shows no «amplifying» and therefor showing that there is no warming whatsoever but actually the climatic signal is one of cooling, to the extent of it been the higher COOLING CLIMATIC signal for this year than any other year for the last 10,000 years.

The mean areal N2O emissions reported here are approximately an order of magnitude less than those estimated for US reservoirs (Baron et al. 2013) and are consistent with the areal fluxes reported by Yang and colleagues (2014).

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.

«This means that limiting or excluding REDD has no benefit for climate, and would only result in the countries agreeing to reduce their emissions by less.

JimD, «This slower rate of warming — relative to climate model projections — means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now»

This comparison shows the observed global mean temperatures (GMT) are less than model projections if human CO2 emission were held constant at the 2000 level.

«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.

* Your link states that CNG has 80 % less emissions than petrol — this doesn't mean that Australia can reduce its GHG emissions by 80 % by switching to CNG.