Sentences with phrase «on human emissions of greenhouse gases»

Yet according to official climate models, even if the U.S. enacted an immediate and total ban on all human emissions of greenhouse gases, the difference in global temperature by the year 2050 would be a mere five one - hundredths of a degree Celsius.

Not exact matches

Exxon has argued against all the other shareholder proposals as well, including a «policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity»; a policy articulating Exxon's «respect for and commitment to the human right to water»; «a report discussing possible long term risks to the company's finances and operations posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands»; a report of «known and potential environmental impacts» and «policy options» to address the impacts of the company's «fracturing operations»; a report of recommendations on how Exxon can become an «environmentally sustainable energy company»; and adoption of «quantitative goals... for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.»

Trump's stance on the environment contradicts thousands of scientists and decades of research, which has linked many observable changes in climate, including rising air and ocean temperatures, shrinking glaciers, and widespread melting of snow and ice, to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.

As well as explaining that the production of meat — on its journey from farm to fork — is responsible for 15 per cent of the planet's harmful greenhouse gas emissions, it underlines that raising equivalent amounts of grain or vegetables for human consumption uses far less land, water and resources.

On the current trajectory, greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trains, ships and airplanes may become one of the greatest drivers of human - induced climate change, according to a draft of the forthcoming U.N. fifth assessment report on mitigation of climate changOn the current trajectory, greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trains, ships and airplanes may become one of the greatest drivers of human - induced climate change, according to a draft of the forthcoming U.N. fifth assessment report on mitigation of climate changon mitigation of climate change.

The scientists looked at the so - called biogenic fluxes or flow of the three greenhouse gases on land that were caused by human activities over the last three decades and subtracted out emissions that existed «naturally» during pre-industrial times.

The study supports calls for improved monitoring of wetlands and human changes to those ecosystems — a timely topic as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to examine land use impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, says Prof. Merritt Turetsky, Department of Integrative Biology.

It was clear that climate change is an energy problem — burning fossil fuels to generate energy accounts for 74 per cent of human - made greenhouse gas emissions — but I could see that it was very difficult to change the energy industry from the outside and very little was happening on the inside.

In the time since the 2007 version of this report, the human effect on the climate has grown more than 40 percent stronger, thanks to continued emissions of greenhouse gases and more precision in measurements, with carbon dioxide leading the charge.

Application is an environmental issue in industrialized countries like the United States because of high energy input, increased greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and other adverse effects on ecosystems and human health.

Known as a «co-benefit,» using state of the art models for human and natural systems, along with climate projections from the international community, the team was able for the first time to put a value on the global air pollution benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions over the 21st century.

The warm waters across the central and eastern tropical Pacific are boosting global temperatures, which is on top of the long - term warming driven by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth's past, according to an expert on ancient climates.

Mr. McCain has been an interesting voice on global warming, given that he broke with President Bush and most of his party years ago, acknowledging that the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activities was risky and mandatory steps were needed to curb emissions.

A task force assembled by the American Psychological Association hopes to spur more research on the role of the human mind in shaping the behaviors resulting in rising greenhouse - gas emissions as well as on traits that can impede an effective response to global warming and similar slow - building environmental risks.

After 20 years of unfulfilled aspirational pledges (the original Framework Convention on Climate Change), seemingly dead - end detours (the Kyoto Protocol) and relentlessly rising greenhouse - gas emissions, the world may be better off shifting from climate - centric diplomacy to a slate of efforts aimed at advancing the human condition in ways that limit climate - related risks.

Called «Many Heavens, One Earth,» the meeting is intended to generate commitments for actions by religious organizations, congregants and countries that could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or otherwise limit the human impact on the environment.

Terrell Johnson, reporting on a recent NASA publication concluding that deep ocean temperatures have not increased since 2005 (http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/deep-ocean-hasnt-warmed-nasa-20141007): «While the report's authors say the findings do not question the overall science of climate change, it is the latest in a series of findings that show global warming to have slowed considerably during the 21st century, despite continued rapid growth in human - produced greenhouse gas emissions during the same time.»

While pressing for cuts in greenhouse - gas emissions and better efforts to control hunting, both legal and illegal, the participating scientists concluded on an optimistic note, saying they were «optimistic that humans can mitigate the effects of global warming and other threats to polar bears, and ensure that they remain a part of the Arctic ecosystem in perpetuity.»

As for the ethics of all of this, Donald A. Brown of Pennsylvania State University argues that the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases are morally obligated to curb carbon dioxide and similar emissions based on the level of certainty that is already established on the impacts of those emissions — most of which will be in poorer places with small contributions to the human - caused gas buildup in the atmosphere.

While I am still comfortable with my argument that «human inertia» is the prime explanation for a long response time for doing anything about greenhouse gas emissions, I am very wary of efforts by California and the U.K. to stick their necks out on carbon reductions.

I am part of that community; we agree that human greenhouse gas emissions are having a huge, negative effect on global climate.

There's some sobering news on two fronts that many climate campaigners, and politicians, have put at the forefront of their climate agendas: passing legislation capping carbon dioxide emissions and demonstrating technology for capturing and burying the main human - generated greenhouse gas.

Gary Yohe, an environmental economist at Wesleyan University, is one of a large group of veteran students of the climate - energy challenge who say the persistent uncertainties surrounding human - driven warming are the reason to act, to act promptly, and to include a rising price on emissions of greenhouse gases in any policy mix.

Drawing on experience building a customer base for various products over many years, Clark sees efforts to curb emissions of greenhouse gases as a solution that — because of the long - term and cumulative nature of warming risks — is offered well ahead of public recognition of the problem (truly disruptive changes to conditions and resources humans depend on).

In a wide - ranging December 2013 study, conducted to support Our Children's Trust, a group advancing legal challenges to lax greenhouse gas emissions policies on behalf of minors, Hansen called for a «human tipping point» — essentially, a social revolution — as one of the most effective ways of combating climate change, though he still favors a bilateral carbon tax agreed upon by the United States and China as the best near - term climate policy.

Some 98 percent of working climate scientists agree that the atmosphere is already warming in response to human greenhouse - gas emissions, and the most recent research suggests that we are on a path toward what were once considered «worst case» scenarios.

Since 1951, Earth's climate has warmed by about 0.6 degrees Celsius, and researchers assessing the state of climate science for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are 95 percent certain that more than half of the warming is due to human emissions of greenhouse gases.

In June 2016, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific associations sent a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers that reaffirmed the reality of human - caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions «must be substantially reduced» to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.

On the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming will transform the Earth's climate for centuries, with fearful consequences for human health and wellbeing (not to mention the survival of many species and ecosystems), the world can not agree to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because of concerns about the effects on economic growtOn the other hand, despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming will transform the Earth's climate for centuries, with fearful consequences for human health and wellbeing (not to mention the survival of many species and ecosystems), the world can not agree to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions because of concerns about the effects on economic growton economic growth.

On the other hand, 42 papers or about 62 % of scientific papers of this same period predicted the earth would warm from human greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the last three decades, five IPCC «assessment reports,» dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused heavily on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for «dangerous» global warming, climate change, climate «disruption,» and almost every «extreme» weather or climate event.

Karlsson claims that «human emissions of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases is [sic] a substantial influence on the current warming trend.»

«That's conclusive evidence in my view that human driven emission of greenhouse gases were the primary cause of 2013 being the hottest year on record.

This is the belief backed up by the scientific evidence; in the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in September 2013, scientists agreed that it is «extremely likely» that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.

The Geological Society of America «The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.»

«The human impact on global climate is small, and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice - covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, and rivers), or weather.

WHEN speaking to script, Australia's new conservative Prime Minister Tony Abbott will say that he accepts that human emissions of greenhouse gases are having an impact on the world's climate.

Recent polls show a solid majority of Americans reject the man - made global - warming theory pushed by Obama, the UN, and other governments desperate to impose new taxes and regulations on CO2 — a natural gas exhaled by humans and required for plants, human emissions of which make up a fraction of one percent of all the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere.

In 1995 the coalition's own scientists reported that «the scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be deniGreenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denigreenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and can not be denied.»

In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human - caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions «must be substantially reduced» to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.

On Climate Action: The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activitieOn Climate Action: The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activitieon technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities.

The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse ‐ gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.

All these impacts are the direct result of human greenhouse gas emissions and their forcing effect on the world's climate.

Given the importance of the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming in peoples» decisions whether to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the public lack of awareness of the consensus, we need to make people aware of these results.

So we have a situation in which the latest science on two key issues: how much the earth will warm as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions, and how well climate models perform in projecting the warming, is largely not incorporated into the new IPCC report.

Coleman went on to add that he based most of his views on the findings of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international body that says «because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent «second opinion» of the evidence reviewed - or not reviewed - by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.»

Besides emissions of greenhouse gases, humans are constantly changing their environment which does have an impact (e.g. turning a corn field into an asphalt parking lot or massive deforestation in the world's major tropical rainforests or laying down a carpet of black soot on ice sheets).

The average land temperature on earth has risen 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years — essentially all of it caused by human emission of greenhouses gases.

Given that for over 20 years since international climate change negotiations began, the United States has refused to commit to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions based upon the justification that there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant action, if it turns out that human - induced climate change actually greatly harms the health and ecological systems on which life depends of others, should the United States be responsible for the harms that could have been avoided if preventative action had been taken earlier?