This case is not a climate damages lawsuit — it's about water and land pollution from extracting the fossil fuels,
not atmospheric pollution from burning it.
Not exact matches
«We found high levels of PCBs in a region of the world where we wouldn't expect to find them,» says Rosalinda Gioia, an
atmospheric pollution researcher at Lancaster University, UK, and the lead author of the report of the high levels in Environmental Science & Technology.
«We show that uptake of
atmospheric NH3 (ammonia) onto surfaces containing TiO2 (titanium dioxide) is
not a permanent removal process, as previously thought, but rather a photochemical route for generating reactive oxides of nitrogen that play a role in air
pollution and are associated with significant health effects,» the authors write.
By contrast, some chemicals causing
atmospheric pollution are purely artificial and so, according to the scientists, they should be interpreted as a reliable sign that technologically advanced little (
not - so --RRB- green men are close - by.
In the
not - too - distant future,
atmospheric pollution has devastated the earth and resources have become scarce.
Sections 243.1 - 243.4 of Article 243 of the Code, specifically: rate of the tax due on emissions of certain pollutants into the
atmospheric air, caused by stationary sources of
pollution; rates of the tax due on stationary sources» emissions into the
atmospheric air of pollutants (compounds), which are
not listed in Section 243.1 of this Article and are falling within a certain substance hazard category (except for carbon dioxide), shall be applicable subject to determined approximately safe impact levels of such substances» (compounds») impact on the
atmospheric air of urban settlements; and rates of tax due on emissions of carbon dioxide
This paper is from a symposium held in 1974 on
atmospheric pollution, and so it may
not technically be «peer - reviewed».
Why wouldn't (or couldn't) NOAA acknowledge geoengineering
atmospheric aerosol dispersions as a source of particulate
pollution?
Yet, they continue to call for geoengineering deployment as if that is
not the source of «
atmospheric pollution» they have just condemned.
As Science Digest reported in 1973, «At this point we do
not have the comfortable distance of tens of thousands of years to prepare for the next Ice Age, and that how carefully we monitor our
atmospheric pollution will have direct bearing on the arrival and nature of the weather crisis.»
Instead of fixing the black carbon (soot)
pollution they are responsible for, the EU activists continue to rail about the
atmospheric trace gas CO2, which, by the way, doesn't melt glaciers, sea ice or polar ice sheet caps.
The lack of
pollution emissions guarantees that the
atmospheric measurements will
not be distorted by the residues associated with fuel combustion.
Regarding the impact of additional
atmospheric CO2 on our oceans — wouldn't it be accurate to state that while we really do
not fully understand the long term impact, it is clear that humans are negatively impacting the world's oceans by
pollution in many ways and that AGW is
not the most serious concern to the health of the world's oceans.
It is important to note that these impacts do
not take account of ancillary stresses on species due to over-harvesting, habitat destruction, landscape fragmentation, alien species invasions, fire regime change,
pollution (such as nitrogen deposition), or for plants the potentially beneficial effects of rising
atmospheric CO2.
as it was previously said here, it won't prevent acidification of oceans but such molecules like sulphates are known to provoke acidic rains, and even
atmospheric pollution for some sensitive organisms like lichens.
The power of the stars to inspire awe is something too many of us have
not experienced thanks to light
pollution and
atmospheric pollution.