Sentences with phrase «not decarbonize»

Surprisingly enough, both Denmark and Germany did not decarbonize much faster than the global average, despite massive subsidies for solar and wind.

If you are against them, like the majority of the American voters, then it's not gridlock, but simply a policy decision to NOT decarbonize.

In fact, the NAS report highlights that it is very important to invest in developing CDR systems in addition to rapidly scaling up climate mitigation and adaptation solutions (given the importance of viable, sustainable, CDR options in the event we do not decarbonize as quickly as necessary to prevent climate change).

Because the one thing I'm sure of is this: the reality of our current political situation makes it a distinct probability that we don't decarbonize quickly enough to prevent climate change.

You can't decarbonize the economy because congress refuses to ignore the will of the American people?

The virtue is that those who, for whatever reason, won't decarbonize don't have to.

Not exact matches

Yet some critics have declared that the so - called 2 ° C target is impossible, saying we can not deploy the technologies needed to decarbonize the economy in time.

«When it comes to life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, wind and solar energy provide a much better greenhouse gas balance than fossil - based low carbon technologies, because they do not require additional energy for the production and transport of fuels, and the technologies themselves can be produced to a large extend with decarbonized electricity,» states Edgar Hertwich, an industrial ecologist from Yale University who co-authored the study.

«We can't do without nuclear power in a fully decarbonized world.

We are not just talking about how fast humans decarbonize the economy (or whether we do this at all!).

And then the skeptics» simple conclusion goes unchallenged: that it is not worth spending trillions of dollars to decarbonize the world economy.

We have to decarbonize, not just because of carbon dioxide and climate change in the longer term, but because it is killing us directly right now.

Not only will they be needed sooner if we are slower to decarbonize than the IPCC projects is necessary, but they can also make the decarbonization process more cost effective:

The President's existing climate action plan isn't anywhere nearly aggressive enough to achieve a 28 % reduction by 2025, let alone to make a reasonably good start at the task of largely decarbonizing the American economy by 2050.

This will enable power plants that can not otherwise decarbonize to explore options that allow them to stay in business.

The key to decarbonizing our economy is to build a new energy system that does not rely on carbon - based fuels.

And of course we are taking a great many small actions, but we are not deliberately «decarbonizing» our economy.

In any case, even in a realistic best case scenario, we're not doing enough to decarbonize the economy if we want to avoid dangerous and potentially catastrophic global warming.

The growing call to decarbonize the global economy by 80 % by 2050 could only foreseeably happen alongside large parts of the population plunging into poverty, destitution or starvation, as low - carbon energy sources do not produce enough energy to sustain society.

Not only can these regions contribute to a decarbonized world, but implementing mitigation measures can carry significant and much - needed health and socioeconomic benefits to local populations.

As we decarbonize the world, we must improve the lot of humanity, not degrade it, and we must go with the flow of human progress not across or against it.

CDR helps enable a cost - effective transition to a decarbonized economy: Today, environmental advocates claim that prolonged use of fossil fuels is mutually exclusive with preventing climate change, and fossil fuel advocates bash renewables as not ready for «prime time» — i.e. unable to deliver the economic / development benefits of inexpensive fossil energy.

We learned Australia must set emissions caps that rapidly reduce toward zero to decarbonize the economy as fast as possible, enforced in a way that does not limit ambition.

It recognizes the need to decarbonize the economy and move towards renewables, «but some of the specific policies aren't specific enough,» she said.

So the question naturally arises, why aren't the most prominent leaders of America's progressive left — Robert Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, Edward Markey, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, etc. etc. etc. — why aren't they all publicly demanding that President Obama and the EPA use the full legal authority the Executive Branch already has in its hands to largely decarbonize America's economy?

If fossil and nuclear technologies are not acceptable as back - up due to Germany's phasing out of nuclear power and its plan to decarbonize its electric sector, the only consideration left to a 100 percent renewable system is to adapt to the intermittency of wind and solar power and accept periods of darkness when the energy is not available.

As I've demonstrated in other posts here on Climate Etc., the President and the EPA Administrator have the legal power and authority required to largely decarbonize America's economy, if they are willing to apply existing environmental law and regulation to the full extent the Clean Air Act not only allows, but also demands.

Then they came for the tree bark proxies that infected paleo - climate reconstructions throughout the church of CAGW, and the CAGW acolytes replied... paleo - climate is not necessary to justify decarbonizing the world.

His brash style may not be to everyone's taste; some of his goals (hyperloops, Mars missions and the like) might prove overly ambitious; the whole endeavor could yet falter, but the sweeping vision contained in Tesla's master plan has to be the benchmark for any and all businesses seeking to prosper in a decarbonizing economy.

Willard obviously doesn't get that the US decarbonized its economy faster than Europe... without being in Kyoto, and without a national renewable mandate, and without cap and trade, and without a carbon tax... by the way, the US also decarbonized faster than Germany, and the world as a whole decarbonized faster before Kyoto was signed than after.

But I think the issue the paper intends to address is more that clouds can not be blamed for any of the recent warming, and therefore we must still decarbonize the global economy.

We have good reasons to decarbonize our economy even if that weren't the case.

This is quite possible but it doesn't come for free: We need to decarbonize our economy by converting to alternative sources of energy, and this clearly involves an economic cost (in addition to the new job opportunities that come with conversion to a new economy).

This would be a much more convincing argument if it weren't for the fact that the «consensus» is claiming they are certain enough to justify decarbonizing the global energy economy.

So the distraction of the hockey stick is really not worth the bruhaha, so lets get the puck out of here and address the grown - up questions of how to adapt and how to decarbonize.

And if Schwartz is right, we do not have very many years to decarbonize!

«Our goal is to decarbonize the grid, and we don't want to have to rely on gas.»

Grid electricity is the easiest part of the energy supply to decarbonize, so we should be using more electricity — for transport, heating and other purposes — not less; PG&E's generation should grow mightily to accommodate all the Tesla's and Volts Californian's could be driving on electricity from Diablo Canyon.

He said he hopes the region can «begin a long - run direction to how to decarbonize,» adding that «this is not just about carbon reduction, but economic development.»

Based on what we know about climate change and the uncertainties and but most importantly our ability to decarbonize in a substantial way anytime soon, decarbonization is not going to happen quickly in the short term.

Historicall speaking GCMs were not built with decarbonizing in mind.

In short, the Endangerment Rule not only sets the stage for a very rapid transition to what Somerville calls a «decarbonized» society, it also predetermines the options for advancing that agenda.

CCS projects like Petra Nova can enable a cost - effective, fast, and fair transition to a decarbonized economy, but NOT to an indefinite future of expanding «clean coal» power generation.

And don't forget «Global warming is going to have catastrophic consequences, so we need to decarbonize the global energy economy» — The big lie of certainty regarding cause, effect, impacts and cost that is repeated by default conservatives everywhere, especially here.

The thesis is that renewables may not (probably won't) be able to decarbonize our energy system.

Roger Pielke Jr. writes, «Don't get me wrong, we should be taking more effective actions to decarbonize the global energy system.»

Don't get me wrong, we should be taking more effective actions to decarbonize the global energy system.

His belief is now what it was then — that if skeptics can not now disprove CAGW, then governments should begin decarbonizing the global economy.

It has to be done right, and I'm pretty sure that the current IAEA isn't up to the task, but without nuclear power as at least a bridge technology, there's no way that we'll successfully decarbonize our civilization in time.

In the wake of the failed Copenhagen Summit in 2009, Yvo de Boer, former head of the U.N. climate secretariat, would tell journalists the underlying reason the talks faltered was that the key players did not quite yet believe you could decarbonize and continue to deliver economic growth and poverty alleviation.