Analysis suggests researchers may have underestimated how
much carbon humanity can emit, although critics disagree
Analysis suggests researchers may have underestimated how
much carbon humanity can emit, although critics disagree
Not exact matches
The rock dust industry may be as
much about helping to feed
humanity, and keep our fields fertile, as capture
carbon dioxide.
Much of the debate about limiting climate risks and fostering a smooth path for
humanity as its growth spurt crests revolves around metrics like gigatons of
carbon dioxide and billions of dollars.
The real threat, the existential threat, is that climate change will gain so
much momentum that
humanity loses what remaining power it has to slow or stop it, even by reducing
carbon emissions to zero.
«If the United Nations and fellow climate alarmists get their way on restricting
carbon dioxide, the poor will soon be getting poorer —
much,
much poorer — especially in places such as Africa, Latin America, and large swaths of Asia,» The New American's Alex Newman reported in a 2013 article entitled UN
Carbon Regime Would Devastate
Humanity,
It is baked into their business models that they have to push into what climate scientists and climate activists call unburnable
carbon, the
carbon that is well beyond the collective budget for all of
humanity of how
much carbon we could burn and still have any shot at a livable planet.
My historic and current
carbon footprint is certainly
much higher than most of
humanity's.
What it doesn't do is tell scientists how
much of the remaining warming is due to natural climate cycles (not including volcanoes) versus
humanity's
carbon dioxide emissions enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect.