Sentences with phrase «more fossil fuel production»

The reason is simple: increasing human populations since the Industrial Revolution have meant more agriculture, more waste, and more fossil fuel production.

First, it acts as a «negative carbon price» that helps to subsidize and incentivize more fossil fuel production.

Not exact matches

But fracking opponents claim that, though natural gas is considered the greenest of fossil fuels, shale extraction is significantly more carbon - intensive than conventional production and may result in the release of large quantities of methane, itself a greenhouse gas.

Having acknowledged the need to turn from the overdependence on fossil fuels to more environmentally friendly sources of energy, the government has tried to encourage the production of automobiles that use alternative sources of fuel by trying to give tax incentives to any buyers of such cars.

Although the small, labor - intensive factories here envisioned are far more efficient than individual producers, they can become still more efficient when they employ fossil fuel energy and enlarge their production.

By applying fossil fuel energy, new machines, and new forms of organization to production, far more goods could be produced by a given work force.

Moving forward with a campaign pledge to unravel former President Obama's sweeping plan to curb global warming, Trump today is set to sign an executive order that will suspend, rescind or flag for review more than a half - dozen measures in an effort to boost domestic energy production in the form of fossil fuels.

Solar is already competitive with conventional energy in many parts of Germany and will keep getting cheaper, while conventional fossil fuels are more likely to increase in production costs, Channell said.

For more than 50 years fossil fuels and fertilizers have been the key ingredients in much greater global food production and distribution.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, said he's also expecting to see «a lot more litigation about fossil fuel extraction, especially on federal lands and waters,» as the Trump administration seeks to expand domestic energy production.

For more information on G20 fossil fuel subsidies, including public finance, read Oil Change International and Overseas Development Institute's report: Empty Promises: G20 Subsidies to Oil, Gas, and Coal Production

The carbon majors are defined as fossil fuel production entities and cement manufacturers that produced more than ≥ 8 million tonnes carbon per year (MtC / y), while the total human attribution case refers to all relevant human activities that have been measured and used in climate assessment model scenarios that influence climate change.

Each year more than a quarter of global CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels and cement production are taken up by the Earth's oceans.

Air and water pollution from fossil fuel extraction and use have high costs in human health, food production, and natural ecosystems, killing more than 1,000,000 people per year and affecting the health of billions of people [232], [234], with costs borne by the public.

A constant fossil fuel production rate requires increasing energy input, but also use of more land, water, and diluents, with the production of more waste [142].

In spite of current energy trends moving towards green and renewable options, Alberta is planning on double its production of fossil fuels by 2030, meaning that higher supply will generate lower market rates, presenting a more affordable alternative to the American market.

Third, please introduce the notion of «radical hope» by daring to speak of the possibility and necessity of a much more ethical economy that does not rely on fossil fuels (national or foreign), rampant consumerism (and unrestrained waste production), profitable militarism, (subsidized) competition, the commodification of life, the financialization of the globe, the relentless destruction of the environment, the exploitative division of labor at home and abroad, siege consciousness, or the elimination of dissent.

«Aerocene is an invitation to shape a post fossil - fuel epoch, in a cloudscape of interconnected spheres of practices that include open, participatory platforms of knowledge production and distribution; models; data; and sensitivity to the more - than - human world.

Simply moving production of goods to countries much further than where the demand is only acts to increase the need to transport them a longer distance — which in turn also burns more fossil fuels.

Once lauded as the future of clean transportation and energy storage in a variety of other applications, hydrogen - based fuel cell systems have a great many barriers to adoption, one of which is lack of hydrogen infrastructure, and the other is the need to develop hydrogen production sources that aren't fossil fuel - based or that require more energy to produce than can be released in the fuel cell.

The more we can centralize our food production, bringing it closer to our homes, and the less reliant we are on distant food suppliers and fossil fuel - powered transportation networks, the better off we'll all be.

There is a raging battle today about the size of fossil fuel reserves and resources, with «peakists» claiming that we are already at or near peak production of both oil and coal because the amounts of economically recoverable fuels in the ground are more limited than the fossil fuel industry has admitted.

Even after decades of increasingly dire warnings, the US has still not passed comprehensive federal legislation to combat global warming; Canada has abandoned past pledges in order to exploit its emissions - heavy tar sands; China continues to depend on coal for its energy production; Indonesia's effort to stem widespread deforestation is facing stiff resistance from industry; Europe is mulling pulling back on its more ambitious cuts if other nations do not join it; northern nations are scrambling to exploit the melting Arctic for untapped oil and gas reserves; and fossil fuels continue to be subsidized worldwide to the tune of $ 400 billion.

[citation needed] Nevertheless, due to very capital intensive production, it is generally not thought that first generation cells will be able to provide energy more cost effective than fossil fuel sources.»

In recent years, the total cost of fossil - fuel consumption subsidies worldwide has ranged from $ 480 billion to $ 630 billion per year, plus more than $ 100 billion spent every year in production subsidies.

With escalating energy demand and declining fossil fuel supplies — and more efficient production capabilities — it will very quickly be cost competitive.

The point is this: As the peak of oil production comes and goes, and as natural gas does the same sometime later, people are going to become ever more desperate in a fossil - fuel constrained world.

J&D also note that by transitioning to more efficient technologies (for example, battery electric vehicles over the internal combustion engine, electric heat pumps for homes, and solar thermal energy with storage to provide baseload power rather than fossil fuels and nuclear) we can actually reduce global power production by 30 % compared to business - as - usual.

I am imagining a future agreement that is more successful in reducing the rate of fossil - fuel consumption than the present Kyoto Agreement, but that does not change the total remaining production.

I encourage people with access to climate simulation software who want to include more effects to try out the fossil - fuel production profiles in the spreadsheet at

Tar sands oil is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels in commercial production today and produces three to five times more climate changing emissions than conventional crude oil.

51 Fig. 20 - 14, p. 481 Cut fossil fuel use (especially coal) Shift from coal to natural gas Improve energy efficiency Shift to renewable energy resources Transfer energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies to developing countries Reduce deforestation Use more sustainable agriculture and forestry Limit urban sprawl Reduce poverty Slow population growth Remove CO 2 from smoke stack and vehicle emissions Store (sequester) CO2 by planting trees Sequester CO 2 deep underground Sequester CO 2 in soil by using no - till cultivation and taking cropland out of production Sequester CO 2 in the deep ocean Repair leaky natural gas pipelines and facilities Use animal feeds that reduce CH 4 emissions by belching cows Solutions Global Warming PreventionCleanup

Yet it has a long way to go to catch up with fossil fuels, which currently provide more than three - quarters of heat production globally, resulting in significant CO2 emissions and in some cases adding to local air pollution.

True, fossil fuel prices fluctuate and when prices are high, that does make solar look more enticing — but only as supplemental production at this point as solar can not run 24/7/365.

These include making renewable energy carriers available on - site by using more electricity and district heating instead of fossil fuels for processes, using more environmentally - friendly materials for lower emissions in production (e.g. recycled steel, and solid wood), better thinking around transport of surplus masses (soil / rock / gravel), and improved waste management and recycling.

Some depend on fossil fuel production, and others perceive fossil fuel development as the only route out of extreme poverty, even as others have begun to pursue a more sustainable future.

Included in life cycle carbon are substantial methane leaks from natural gas production and pipelines, the energy for drilling, mining, transport, refining, and disposal that are much more significant for fossil fuels and nuclear energy than for renewables.

About seven - in - ten (73 %) of those ages 18 to 49 say developing alternative sources of energy should be the more important priority, while 22 % say expanding production of fossil fuels should be the more important priority.

The myth that opening up more public lands and waters for fossil fuel production will result in a windfall for America is dead wrong.

The carbon majors are defined as fossil fuel production entities and cement manufacturers that produced more than ≥ 8 million tonnes carbon per year (MtC / y), while the total human attribution case refers to all relevant human activities that have been measured and used in climate assessment model scenarios that influence climate change.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Among those 50 and older, 55 % say alternative energy development is more important, while 34 % say it's more important to expand production of fossil fuel energy sources.

A constant fossil fuel production rate requires increasing energy input, but also use of more land, water, and diluents, with the production of more waste [142].

Utilities prefer wind energy because the intermittent production at the wrong time of the day becomes a token excuse to build more fossil and nuclear fueled power plants.

Rather than finding ways to curtail fossil fuel production in line with the demands of climate science, the U.S. federal government, under President Obama's «All of the Above» energy strategy, is currently channeling more than $ 5 billion each year in exploration subsidies to actually expand proven reserves, leading to the discovery of fossil fuels that we know we should never burn.

Today, Oil Change International released a comprehensive report on fossil fuel exploration and production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, andfossil fuel exploration and production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, and cfuel exploration and production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas,production subsidies in the U.S. — Cashing in on All of the Above: U.S. Fossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, andFossil Fuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas, and cFuel Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas,Production Subsidies under Obama — which demonstrates that at a time when we need urgent action on climate change more than ever, the U.S. government is channeling huge and growing amounts of money to increasing discovery and production of oil, gas,production of oil, gas, and coal.

The production of biofuels requires staggering amounts of fresh water, several times more than fossil - fuel energy production.

And Texas — a state practically synonymous with fossil fuel production — installed more wind turbines than any other state in 2014.

There are more emissions from the total Corn Ethanol production sequence and use as an alternative and additive to fossil fuels than if ordinary fossil originated fuels were just used to do the job.

Perhaps the most surprising rankings involved Republican - led states more typically known for their fossil fuel production.