Sentences with phrase «much higher carbon emissions»

First, we are richest, second we have much higher carbon emissions per capita and third, we put the CO2 in the atmosphere in the first place.

Not exact matches

«If poor countries hadn't gone down that road, our carbon emissions would be now far higher than they are, and it would be growing every day much worse than it is.»

Thus, would you rather have some of your money going toward the makers of high - efficiency vehicles, many (or at least some) of which should be in the U.S., helping to create or preserve jobs in the U.S, by making these shifts, and all - the - while helping to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and protect the climate; OR would you rather continue to have much more of your money going to ExxonMobil and to overseas providers of oil, all - the - while continuing to pour larger amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

In the long run I don't think we will succeed in getting transportation of oil by trying to stop oil production on a site - by - site basis, we are going to have to put a high price on transportation fuels that have high carbon emissions and get much more serious about driving energy innovation they can get the transportation system off carbon.

Well - off people will be able to pay the higher prices, and the 50 - 70 % of people who will gain financially (dividend $ > higher prices) will have more money to spend, likely leading to higher carbon emissions or surely not as much reduction as predicted.

Brazil and Indonesia have high levels of deforestation and are responsible for much of the current carbon emissions from the land.

Americans will have to pay much higher electricity prices despite the minuscule benefits of the Clean Power Plan, which reduces global carbon dioxide emissions by less than 1 percent and global temperatures by 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to EPA's own models.

This current research has definitively stated the likely importance of blue carbon conversions and the unaccounted emissions that have very much higher estimates.

Now, as an important aside, it is quite doubtful one could actually stabilize at 750 ppm, since work by the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Hadley Center suggest that carbon cycle feedbacks, like the defrosting of the tundra or the die - back of the Amazon rain forest, would release greenhouse gas emissions that would take the planet to much higher levels.

In terms of carbon emissions, new technology coal is still around 30 per cent higher than LNG but much lower than conventional coal powered generation.

We know that things like energy independence, getting off oil, getting out of the Middle East, and creating jobs and economic development in the new clean energy industries of the future are much higher priorities for most voters than capping carbon emissions or taxing dirty energy sources.

However, if high - emitting nations take the «equity» and «fairness» requirement seriously, they will need to not only reduce ghg emissions at very, very rapid rates, a conclusion that follows from the steepness of the remaining budget curves alone, but also they will have to reduce their ghg emissions much faster than poor developing nations and faster than the global reductions curves entailed only by the need to stay within a carbon budget.

Both wetland drying and the increased frequency of warm dry summers and associated thunderstorms have led to more large fires in the last ten years than in any decade since record - keeping began in the 1940s.9 In Alaskan tundra, which was too cold and wet to support extensive fires for approximately the last 5,000 years, 105 a single large fire in 2007 released as much carbon to the atmosphere as had been absorbed by the entire circumpolar Arctic tundra during the previous quarter - century.106 Even if climate warming were curtailed by reducing heat - trapping gas (also known as greenhouse gas) emissions (as in the B1 scenario), the annual area burned in Alaska is projected to double by mid-century and to triple by the end of the century, 107 thus fostering increased emissions of heat - trapping gases, higher temperatures, and increased fires.

In other words, but for hydraulic fracturing, our carbon emissions would be much higher.

Even a much higher carbon price of 300 Euros per tonne would only result in a moderate increase in ticket prices, and therefore only a moderate reduction in demand and emissions growth.

The Bloomberg report shows us the results — the replacement of low - carbon nuclear power with a mix of mainly natural gas and some renewables, with much higher net greenhouse emissions.

A new study quantifying emissions from a fleet of gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines and port fuel injection (PFI) engines finds that the measured decrease in CO2 emissions from GDIs is much greater than the potential climate forcing associated with higher black carbon emissions from GDI engines.

If we agreed on points like this, we really don't need to spend so much time and effort focusing on regulation, carbon pricing, emission targets and time tables and high cost mitigation policies that have low probability of achieving their aims.

Inevitable, the costs to achieve the target emissions reductions would be much higher and the benefits would not be delivered (because it is highly unlikely the world will agree to a global carbon price).

Read the original article for more detailed reasons why fracking emissions are so much higher than conventional sources of natural gas — which otherwise compared to coal is a far cleaner - burning source of energy, even if a long way from being carbon - neutral or renewable.

Most famously, Nicholas Stern, an economist at the London School of Economics, argued in 2006 for quick, aggressive action to limit emissions, which would most likely imply much higher carbon prices.

Almost every idea that might bring us a better future would be made much easier if the cost of fossil fuel was higher — if there was some kind of a tax on carbon emissions that made the price of coal and oil and gas reflect its true environmental cost.»

With the Golden State's headlong rush toward lower carbon - dioxide emissions and greater use of renewables, the energy poverty figure is surely much higher today.

The total emissions are much higher when the whole carbon cycle is used and not just measurements from the flue stack and the atmosphere.

No one knows how high the country's emission peak will be and it's unclear how much carbon dioxide China will be emitting when 2030 comes around.