Sentences with phrase «nothing about carbon»

So the Canadian public, most of whom do not understand the science anyway, have one more reason to believe that our Federal Government is wrong to do nothing about carbon taxes, CAGW, etc. etc..

Five years after they said they'd get right on it, more than one - quarter of UN organizations have done nothing about their carbon footprint.

If we eliminated emissions of methane and black carbon, but did nothing about carbon dioxide we would have delayed but not significantly reduced long - term threats posed by climate change.

Not exact matches

«Years ago there was this huge hype about carbon nanotubes, a very similar material, and then nothing happened to them,» she says.

Religious faith has nothing to say about the melting point of copper or the atomic weight of carbon.

«I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing.»

About a third of the planet's carbon fixation is thought to happen in pyrenoids, yet we know almost nothing about how these structures are formed at a molecular lAbout a third of the planet's carbon fixation is thought to happen in pyrenoids, yet we know almost nothing about how these structures are formed at a molecular labout how these structures are formed at a molecular level.

7It is particularly ironic that Lomborg would offer such a ridiculously precise estimate of the cost of the impacts of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, inasmuch as the entire thrust of his books chapter on «global warming» is that practically nothing about the effects of greenhouse gases is known with certainty.

There's nothing reserved about the three different 19 - inch wheel designs developed exclusively for the RC F. And for drivers who don't mind even more attention while reducing vehicle weight, there's an available carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) roof and rear wing, developed from the LFA and IS F CCS - R racecar.

In contrast, if we eliminated carbon dioxide emissions but did nothing about methane and black carbon emissions, threats posed by long - term climate change would be markedly reduced.

This is, after all, a common sense position: there is nothing radical about a halt to old growth forest logging, as these places are dwindling sources of biodiversity and carbon sequestration.

However this view is based on a lack of knowledge of what Marx actually wrote about the nature of the modern state which was: «The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie» Some leftists may well scream in exactly the same way as the new rightists, that carbon taxes are part of a plot by the wicked capitalists to make the poor freeze in winter.

Based on Scenario A we are already about 10 % over the predicted emissions if we did nothing in spite of the fact that $ billions have been spent on Kyoto initiatives and carbon trading, so in spite of our efforts to slow down the rate of emissions because China and other rapidly developing economies are politically excluded from Kyoto; this has served no purpose in reducing CO2 emissions.

There is nothing neutral about the consequences of carbon pollution and economic exclusion.

My colleague Matt Hourihan wrote a great review of the effect price has on technology change and found that price — especially the small to moderate carbon pricing and fuel taxes talked about within policy circles — will do nothing but drive incremental technology change.

The most one could say is that these sorts of groups have opposed specific legislation, such as carbon taxes or drilling bans, that Brulle wants politicians to enact into law.50 This opposition may explain a lot about Brulle's motivations, and it definitely shows that he's more interested in political victories than science, but it says nothing about how Americans form their views of the science of Global Warming.

«There's nothing «conservative» about doubling the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and seeing what happens.

They said nothing, for example, about bitumen's poor quality, unending carbon liabilities, soaring costs and appalling energy returns.

For example, because the mass balance argument says nothing about absolute numbers or attribution it may be that we are also — for example — destroying carbon - fixing plankton, reducing the breaking of waves and hence mechanical mixing with the upper ocean, releasing methane in the tundra which was previously held by acid rain and which can now be converted to CO2, or it may be we are just seeing a deep current, a tiny bit warmer than usual because of the MWP, heating deep ocean clathrate so that methanophage bacteria can devour it and give off CO2.

In the play we hear nothing of the real climate scientists who have had to upgrade their home security and change their children's bus routes, or the young woman who after speaking about carbon footprints at her local library emerged to find her car smeared with excrement spelling out «climate turd».

If it was warmer then that it is now, but that warmth had nothing to do with any carbon dioxide, how does that tell us anything about today's sensitivity?

A new national poll found 7 in 10 voters have heard «just a little or nothing at all» about EPA's regulation to rein in carbon emissions from power plants.

«We've emitted 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and we only recently have any certainty this is affecting our climate, so limited field tests would tell you next to nothing about the climate effects of solar geoengineering.»

Nothing, right... except when you consider that the radiative forcing due to doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is only about 3.7 W / m ², and that's expected to change the average surface temperature by about 3 °C, eventually ³.

Artificially increasing the Earth's reflectivity, for example, does nothing about the ongoing acidification of the oceans resulting from carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere.

Meanwhile it gets used to soften the impact of the idea of new build coal, everyone talks about capturing the carbon and there's nothing to worry about.

He said nothing specific about ways of fighting emissions of carbon dioxide from polluting internal combustion engines.

There is nothing «controversial» about the carbon cycle and the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration except the superstitious belief of some people that they «know» all that needs to be known when — in reality — the carbon cycle is unquantified in all its parts, not understood in any of its behaviouers, and there are many possible explanations for the recent rise.

Nothing I know about carbon removal or solar geoengineering suggest that we can avoid the need to cut emissions.

This says nothing about the * rest * of what needs to be done — I haven't the foggiest clue how to (practically) extract carbon from the atmosphere, alter water budgets, or reduce the need for shipping.

COTAP does not support the use of offsetting by entities which plan to do nothing about eventually making direct reductions to their emissions, nor do we support the use of carbon offsets as a way to compensate for increasing one's emissions.

Whatever may be said about your February 9th comment, it is certainly not «the only self - consistent plan on the climate blogs», and indeed, it really offers nothing more than what Hansen et al recommended in one sentence in the abstract of their 2008 article: «phasing out coal use... and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon.»

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a conventional manually - pedaled bicycle, as they're fun, inexpensive, simple to work on and maintain, and about as low - carbon of a transportation option as you can get.

For Monday's Cincinnati Reds game against the Chicago Cubs, the season opener for both teams, the team purchased carbon credits for the 96 tons of carbon emissions estimated to have been created by the stadium's electricity and natural gas usage (however nothing is mentioned about carbon produced by travel).

But that isn't to say we know nothing about what CO2 trends will be like in the future — mainly because the inertia in our use of fossil fuels and the carbon cycle itself mean that our ability to strongly affect CO2 concentration pathways before around 2050 is limited.