Sentences with phrase «need deeper emissions»

We urgently need deep emissions cuts in all sectors, but energy has to come first - Urszula of Friends of the Earth Poland looks ahead to COP24 #COP23 #JustTransition #FossilFree pic.twitter.com/i5HXfi 0wqJ

Not exact matches

Achieving the 2025 target will require a further emission reduction of 9 - 11 % beyond our 2020 target compared to the 2005 baseline and a substantial acceleration of the 2005 - 2020 annual pace of reduction, to 2.3 - 2.8 percent per year, or an approximate doubling;» Substantial global emission reductions are needed to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, and the 2025 target is consistent with a path to deep decarbonization.

But «undoubtedly there is a need for much deeper emission reductions from industrialized countries.»

Deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 70 percent by mid-century will be needed to avert the worst of global warming that is already harming all continents, a draft U.N. report showed.

The acid test will come in 2015, when nations will meet in Paris to agree to limits on emissions beyond 2020 — when deep cuts will be needed if the planet is to have any chance of avoiding «dangerous» climate change.

The European Union needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 to avoid the worst effects of climate change, according to a British government paper, likely to fuel debate on whether deeper cuts are affordable.

«If we are serious about climate change, the 10 per cent of the global population responsible for 50 per cent of total emissions need to make deep and immediate cuts in their use of energy — and hence their carbon emissions,» says Anderson.

You'll also need deep pockets to run one as a company car, bearing in mind that lofty list price and CO2 emissions of 207 g / km.

Some did not sign, because they thought even deeper emissions cuts are needed.

He described this as just «one of many tools» needed for an effort that must include deep cuts in gas emissions from established and emerging industrial powers.

As I wrote at the time, you'd have to dig deep and long in the background chapters to learn that «many of these technologies exist today» hides huge gaps, particularly at the scale that would be needed to blunt emissions of greenhouse gases.

[I] f you want deep cuts to [greenhouse gas] emissions, you need a broad - based policy, not a hopelessly leveraged argument against a single project.

The vision is also flawed in other ways: it has no short - term emission reduction goal, it's unenforceable, and it fails to acknowledge that developed nations will need to make deeper and swifter emission cuts than developing nations.

Prompt the politicians to feel a deep need to read not only the IPCC reports but also related reports regarding our (U.S.) emissions, abatement options, and specific recommendations, e.g., the recent PCAP report and McKinsey report.

Last month, Mr. Gore described funding for forest preservation as «one of many tools» needed for an effort that must include deep cuts in gas emissions from established and emerging industrial powers.

In both, he asserts that the current legislative proposals, by focusing incentives on deployment of today's wind and solar technology, could actually stifle the vital need to build the capacity for achieving deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions once the easier reductions are achieved.

This fact — that so serious a crisis could have so marginal an impact on global emissions — is an extremely important warning, for it clearly implies that the deep emissions cuts we need will not come by way of any modest curtailment of economic activity.

Deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 70 per cent by mid-century will be needed to avert the worst of global warming that is already harming all continents, a draft UN report shows.

However, such strategies, irrespective of their inherent merits, would only postpone the decarbonization needed in the power sector if deep emissions reductions proposed to 2050 are to be met.

DeBrum said countries such as his, on the frontline of climate change, needed to see concrete signs that leaders were prepared to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and put up the cash needed to help poor countries cope with climate change.

Deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions are urgently needed to prevent dangerous climate change, but they must be complemented by reductions in short - lived climate pollutants, which produce a strong global...

And detailed analyses by organizations like the IEA have explicitly discussed the need for significant technology development to reach deep emission reductions.

We will need to see a deep decline if we are to limit dangerous climate change, and even with existing emissions - reduction commitments, global emissions are not expected to decline until at least after 2030.

But in a puzzle to climate scientists, the rate slowed to 2.4 millimetres (0.09 inch) a year from 2003 to 2011 from 3.4 mm from 1994 - 2002, heartening sceptics who doubt that deep cuts are needed in mankind's rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was at the conference Monday, joined others who have complained that the plan appears to be backsliding on commitments for deep cuts in carbon - dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gasses needed to avoid tipping into a danger zone of climate - related floods and droughts.

Significant emission reductions can be achieved by energy ‐ efficiency improvements and fossil fuel switching, but they are not sufficient by themselves to provide the deep cuts needed.

Possessing just 25 % of the world's population but 75 % of its atmosphere was innately unjust and it means that developed countries need to make many more deeper and faster cuts in their emissions today while providing finance and technology to developing countries to help them cut theirs.

Deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions are urgently needed to prevent dangerous climate change, but they must be complemented by reductions in short - lived climate pollutants, which produce a strong global warming effect but have relatively brief atmospheric lifetimes.

«Without ambitious climate targets there is no need for deep emission reductions and carbon prices will remain at low levels.

The shift from binding and long term emissions targets to voluntary Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) made inevitable the second historic shift in international climate mitigation efforts, which is the formal and explicit recognition that we do not, in fact, have all the technology we need to achieve deep reductions in emissions.

Perhaps Mr McKibben's role is to act on a project by project basis, but I would expect both he and Dr. Hansen to see the big picture — if you want deep cuts to GHG emissions, you need a broad - based policy, not a hopelessly leveraged argument against a single project.

By contrast, developing countries focus on «differentiated» responsibilities — namely the need for the big industrial nations to take the deeper emissions cuts.

In 2018, strengthened INDCs would need to include (1) deeper emission reductions by 2030, (2) longer term targets with substantial cuts in emissions, and (3) participation by all nations.

Of central and agreed importance is the need to negotiate deep emission cuts as a part of a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

He also said, «The agreement and the decisions surrounding it needs to be a long term development plan providing the policies, pathways and finance for triggering a peaking of global emissions in 10 years» time followed by a deep, decarbonisation of the global economy by the second half of the century — a development plan that crucially also supports the growth as well as the climate ambitions of developing countries.»

We need to make smart investments to reduce those emissions that do not drive us deeper into the affordable housing and homelessness crises we're facing.

(Bernie Fraser, Chairman, Climate Change Authority): «The funding of the kind of scale that would be necessary to deal with the extra emissions reductions that Australia will have to pursue to do its bit to reduce global emissions makes it quite fanciful I think to think that the ERF could be scaled up and funded to the degree that one would think would be necessary»... (John Connor, CEO Climate Institute): «The debate is shifting into even deeper reductions that we need to have beyond 2020 and it shows that the emissions reduction fund is just an inadequate tool to be the primary tool for emission reductions, while the renewable energy target is a critical target that we need to be strengthening, not weakening.

To make these things happen, what we need is comprehensive carbon pricing that is sufficent to drive deep emission reductions, and international cooperation.

[And yes, like Princeton, I agree we need to do some R&D now to ensure a steady flow of technologies to make the even deeper emissions reductions needed in the second half of the century.]

BECCS is another system that uses fast growing trees to be burned for electricity generation, and emissions stored underground in old oil wells, and deep permeable rock formations, but this needs gigantic areas of land, irrigation and fertiliser and expensive, energy intensive processes.

Moreover, low - carbon supply technologies can not deliver the necessary rate of emission reductions — they need to be complemented with rapid, deep and early reductions in energy consumption»

An international climate agreement hinges not only on deep greenhouse gas emission reductions but also on the provision of funds for developing countries to meet their adaptation and mitigation needs.