Sentences with phrase «on carbon emissions so»

What we actually need is to put a price on carbon emissions so that will gradually increase over time.

Not exact matches

The main reason the US ranks so poorly on carbon dioxide emissions is because its per - person consumption rate of electricity is so high; all of that energy comes primarily from fossil fuels.

Pretty well every economist you talk to will agree: If you want to reduce pollution, carbon or otherwise, the most cost - effective way to do so is with a price on the emissions of that which you seek to reduce.

Impact on oil and gas production: compared to a carbon tax, Alberta's policy offers emitters less of an incentive to reduce production in order to cut GHGs, notes Leach: «assuming that the facility reduced production by 10 percent, and that emissions decreased proportionately (a simplifying assumption), the facility's emissions intensity would not change, so its carbon liability per barrel of oil produced would also remain constant.»

So I returned to my original question: But the Harper government is open to considering a levy on carbon emissions?

This sucker could transform lives in so many ways it's not even funny: besides charging economy - altering cellphones and giving children the ability to study after dark, it can help in areas ranging from health (the kerosene lamps currently typically used for night - time lighting are terrible on the lungs) to economics (kerosene can suck up 25 - 30 % of a family budget) to global warming (kerosene = carbon emissions).

The environmental audit committee's report on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) points to underperformance in the scheme so far, concluding the «record in reducing carbon emissions is far less impressivEmissions Trading Scheme (ETS) points to underperformance in the scheme so far, concluding the «record in reducing carbon emissions is far less impressivemissions is far less impressive».

So companies in the developed world have an annual limit on the level of greenhouse gas emissions they can produce, and if they exceed their cap, they can purchase credits generated by the emission reduction projects or low - carbon technologies in developing countries.

So I initially thought there was no way drones could compete with trucks on carbon dioxide emissions,» said senior author Anne Goodchild, a UW associate professor of civil and environmental engineering.

So far, climate change policies on the tropics have effectively been focusing on reducing carbon emissions from deforestation only, not accounting for emissions coming from forest degradation.

So when, in fact, we have to try while still getting all of the energy that we need, we also need to start cutting back on our carbon emissions, and we have to start doing that right away because every year that we delay we are pumping that much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and getting closer and closer to those thresholds.

Moreover, the Senate bill that would fund DOE — the so - called energy and water bill — hangs in limbo, thanks to the political battle over the Obama administration's plan to use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations to set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, especially those that burn coal.

«As time goes on, the rate of burning in the power plant stays the same, but the carbon accumulates, so by the end of the year, the greenhouse gases will be heating the earth much more than the direct emissions of the power plant.»

While there is only so much these companies can do to reduce their huge carbon footprints — given their reliance on emissions - heavy air transport — they've made great strides in greening their ground fleets, optimizing their choices of modes and otherwise streamlining energy use.

The government will continue to «lurch back and forth» between so - called command - and - control standards on carbon emissions and the deregulatory approach favored by conservatives without such a policy, Mankiw argued, which «makes long - term planning all the more difficult.»

It also supports over the counter sales, allows either caterers and schools to justifiably claim that the containers they sell can be recovered for recycling after - use, and also carries numerous other benefits; such as improved janitor utilisation (so less time's spent on litter control / cleaning), reduction in skip use as materials are removed separately for recycling and / or are stored in a compacted form, and reduction of carbon emissions within the recovery chain.

For example, who has worked to stop sensible progress restraining carbon emissions and oil demand, muzzled an open scientific debate on on these issues, kept secret the participants in high level meetings to develop energy policy, vetoed one measure after another that would have advanced his country ever so little in a direction towards climate restraint.

Unfortunately, RECs are almost entirely non-additional (e.g. the wind turbines producing them in Iowa would have been built independent of the REC income stream), so buying RECs has no real effect on carbon dioxide emissions.

Rather than focus on high - and low - polluting rich and poor nations, they focus on the emerging global class of a billion or so individuals — whether they reside in Shanghai or Chicago — who are responsible for an outsize portion of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide.

So carbon emissions are well advanced on a downward path by mid century.

At any rate, in my personal view, we should not prescribe exactly what needs to be done but should instead implement flexible schemes like Kyoto or the McCain - Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act that allow trading of emissions credits, credits for carbon sequestration (provided it can truly be shown to work) and so on.

So it's utterly unremarkable to find 49 people, including astronauts and engineers, who would publicly reject James Hansen's view of the dangers posed by unabated emissions of carbon dioxide, or the Obama administration's approach to the space agency's research programs, news releases and other forms of public output on climate, which is markedly different than that of the last Bush administration.

The report confirms what I have said many times, negative emissions technologies like forests, carbon friendly agriculture, beccs etc are slow to scale up, and land areas are limited, etcetera, and so will have limited impact on the 50 year Paris goals.

Both policies are intended (1) to raise the price of the carbon emissions that cause global warming, thereby discouraging those emissions and encouraging alternatives, and (2) to do so in a way that does not place the burden of adjustment disproportionately on the poor.

Which then leads to a very different characterization of the problem in which carbon emissions are really just a by - product of a cheap energy consumerist society, and the problem isn't to reduce emissions, it is to restructure our entire societies (and our conceptions of them) so that we no longer depend on growth in resource consumption as our definition of human progress.

China's plan to build millions of electric vehicles will have little impact on the country's carbon dioxide emissions, a new analysis concludes, because so much of the country's electricity is produced by burning coal.

So, I rang up one of the world's leading experts on carbon emissions (who worked at the institution that employed me at the time — WHRC) and had him look over the numbers.

The state of Maryland has announced that it plans on using the $ 70 million it makes from charging utilities for carbon emissions to aid lower income families — and in doing so, it's breaking from the 9 other states participating in

I'm in Beijing to participate in a week of meetings related to the unfolding international science effort called Future Earth, so I won't be able to weigh in in a timely fashion on President Obama's planned Monday release of regulations restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing American power plants.

Placing so much emphasis solely on carbon footprints gives traction to foolhardy ideas such as carbon capture, iron seeding of the ocean and the expansion of nuclear power, which have no precedent in geologic history and seek to reduce net carbon emissions at the cost of much greater environmental damage.

So I exchanged emails on Tuesday with Abyd Karmali, the global head of carbon emissions at Merrill Lynch in London, to gauge his mood.

His speech today will set a goal of flattening emissions of carbon dioxide from United States power plants sometime around 2020 or so, on the way toward stopping all growth in United States greenhouse - gas emissions by 2025.

So, if you add up every car, airplane, ship, train, and every mode of transportation on the planet and the emissions from those vehicles, it's equal to the amount of carbon released when trees are cut down.

After the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed their right to do so, in AEP v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that such claims were «displaced by the federal legislation authorizing EPA to regulate carbon - dioxide emissions.»

Challenging news for those climate campaigners who believe that renewable sources of energy are on the increase: they may be, but so are carbon dioxide emissions.

Fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil stand to lose revenue if carbon emissions are restricted so they certainly would dole out money to any scientist that was working on a landmark anti-AGW paper.

«One of Expedia's core Corporate Social Responsibility values is climate action, so there was really no question about whether or not working with COTAP made sense,» said Tony Donohoe, SVP and CTO of Expedia Worldwide Engineering at Expedia, Inc. «Travel is a large contributor to carbon emissions, and given that we are in the business of travel, anything we can do to help alleviate the impact we're on board.

Fast Mitigation: «If we want to reduce the threat of climate change in the near future, there are actions to take now: reduce emissions of short - lived pollutants such as black carbon, cut emissions of methane from natural - gas fields and landfills, and so on,» says Stanford climate scientist Ken Caldeira.

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.

On one hand, those who support I - 732 — which is similar to British Columbia's carbon tax and is designed to reduce carbon emissions over the next four decades by increasingly taxing major polluters — have very compelling reasons to do so.

The audience was similarly made up of likely buyers of emissions credits (Stanwell and other electricity generators), sellers (geothermal and other carbon - free sources) and intermediaries (accounting companies, consulting engineers and so on).

By putting a price on carbon, these policies give businesses the incentive to innovate so they can cut emissions at the lowest possible cost.

Burning coal emits the highest amount of CO2 per unit of energy it delivers, so coal is first on the firing line when it comes to emissions regulation and carbon pricing.

Only the second college in the nation to achieve this goal, and the first to do so through a significant reduction in on - site emissions achieved through efficiency, adoption of clean energy, and purchase of quantifiable local carbon offsets.

So why not repeal some of those taxes and replace them with a tax on something we actually want to discourage — namely, carbon emissions?

Hansen and Sachs met with reporters here Tuesday (Dec. 3) in Columbia University's Low Library to discuss their study and their thoughts on the ongoing — and so far, largely ineffectual — effort to come up with a global plan to combat the problem of climate change and scale back emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide.

I am also troubled that the discussion of climate change is so focused on carbon emissions instead of understanding the impact of the total human footprint.

So even if the IPCC were right about climate sensitivity, which Lewis» submission makes clear it is not, and even if the programme were to reduce UK carbon emissions, which it will not, the UK would still be engaging at vast expense in an exercise which will have no effect on its alleged motivation, global warming.

«NRSP's first campaign is focused on dispelling the notion that Canada will benefit from carbon dioxide emission control,» claims this so - called scientific group, which fails on its Web site to disclose where it gets its funding while at the same time calling themselves «non-partisan.»

Cumulative carbon dioxide emissions should be calculated on a per capita basis for each country, so that every nation can shoulder a common but differentiated responsibility for climate change... Such a calculation «better reflects the principal of equity for developing countries»...