Sentences with phrase «out of fossil fuel use»

But I don't see how it will produce steep reductions in GHG emissions within 5 - 10 years, and a nearly complete phase - out of fossil fuel use within 10 - 20 years at most, which is what is needed to avoid catastrophic warming, if indeed it is not already too late to do so.

Not exact matches

The shift away from pure fossil - fuel engines has been so fast that 2017 sales of cars using some form of electric battery power topped out at 52 percent, according to the Norwegian Road Federation (OFV).

After his departure, China said it plans to accelerate the use of alternative - energy cars, phasing out sales of fossil - fuel vehicles and turning the province into a free - trade port.

When fossil fuels run out we shall have invented ways of using the energy of the sun to drive our industries.

Groups such as Friends of the Earth warn the UK can not «plant its way out» of climate change but instead must reduce its use of fossil fuels.

One could frame the debate in the advantages of using less fossil fuel, which range from lower costs to people (an all electric car has operating costs about 1/4 that of a gasoline vehicle), to balance of payments (less capital flowing out of the country, especially relevant to countries who import most of their oil), to terrorism (not funding it, and western influence leaving the ME, which is the basis of most ME terrorist organizations) to conflict in general (most of the major conflicts in the last 30 years have involved ME oil), to finite supply (when we run out, we'll be facing a global economic meltdown).

Beth Newcomer The Legislative Analyst for NYC Council Member Helen Rosenthal (District 6, Upper West Side) encouraged attendees to reach out to their local Council Members and urge them to support the following legislative initiatives: • Possible legislation regarding divestment of the city's pension funds from fossil fuel companies • A bill to require the city to do a carbon footprint analysis of all the products the city procures, and to use that analysis to inform a policy of low - carbon operations • A number of bills to reduce the carbon emissions of city - owned vehicles and improve the sustainability of city buildings • A bill to enhance the city's already - strong idling laws so as to make them easier to enforce Find your Council Member here.

Now a group of researchers led by Steven Kuznicki at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and Anthony Ku at General Electric think they can be used to screen out the carbon dioxide produced when processing or burning fossil fuels.

His calculations, based on 2008 figures for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, show that even assuming a lower estimate of forest carbon content, total and equivalent CO2 would level out at 476 parts per million, even if we stopped all fossil fuel use immediately.

If we could pull carbon out of the air and use it to wean cars off fossil fuels, that would go a long way toward reducing humankind's production of greenhouse gases without impeding technological progress.

OSLO (Reuters)- World powers are running out of time to slash their use of high - polluting fossil fuels and stay below agreed limits on global warming, a draft U.N. study to be approved this week shows.

To work out the economic benefits and costs of switching to clean energy, the team estimated how much air pollution would fall if fossil fuel use was slashed.

Other algorithms — including one that scans for certain pore shapes using techniques derived from facial - recognition software — then seek out the best candidates for absorbing carbon dioxide from the flues of fossil - fuel power plants.

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm It is also worth noting that zeroing out CO2 emissions requires not only cessation of fossil fuel burning it also requires cessation of changes in land use which I believe account for about 20 % of CO2 emissions (at least that's my reading of the Woods Hole page).

It turns out that there's such a double - win in most bathrooms around the world; if we had «NoMix» toilets that separate urine from solid waste, municipal wastewater plants would have a significantly easier task (and produce more methane to generate electricity), and we could much more easily extract precious nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen for use as fertilizer (instead of using fossil fuels).

Scientists need to explain to the public that while they continue to study the details of anthropogentic global warming and consequent climate change, that we already know enough to be certain that continued unmitigated warming will be a disaster for all humanity, and that we urgently need to phase out all fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.

«Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change.

Any effort to restrict the use of fossil fuels will therefore have a quantifiable impact on the ability of the poorest people on the planet to lift themselves out of poverty.

In the meantime, the world's poorest two or three billion people, emitting less than one ton of carbon dioxide per person per year (compared to the 20 tons per - capita average of the United States), could be propelled out of poverty with additional fossil fuel use without substantially interfering with efforts to rein in the richest populations» emissions.

That solution is to rapidly phase out fossil fuels and replace them with non-carbon sources of energy, use that energy with maximum efficiency, and use organic agriculture and reforestation to to draw down the already dangerous anthropogenic excess of atmospheric CO2.

Energy Policy, the journal that recently published a paper laying out an ambitious plan to end fossil fuel use in New York State within a few decades, has now published a short critique by four researchers in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

March 13, 12:43 p.m. Relevant tweets appended A group of scientists and energy analysts has laid out a path under which New York State could, in theory, eliminate its use of fossil fuels and nuclear power — including for transportation — by 2050.

Pick a disaster: (1) run out of fossil fuels, (2) keep using fossil fuels.

Therefore, if switching to natural gas from coal reduces the amount of CO2 you emit, you can tolerate quite a large amount of leakage and still come out ahead, because the warming caused by the leakage will go away quickly once you eventually stop using natural gas (and other fossil fuels), whereas the warming you would get from all the extra CO2 you'd pump out if you stuck with coal would stay around forever.

It takes a far, far higher leakage rate to completely negate the benefits of switching, and even then you'd wind up coming out ahead from the switch a few decades after you stop using fossil fuels.

They are out - shouted by professional deniers, in the employ of those who will lose the most if fossil fuel use is curtailed.

After fossil fuel use, deforestation is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, climate experts point out.

Reality: Whilst hominids originated in Africa, they migrated and colonised many latitudes - including temperate and cool zones, well before the fossil fuels were widely used - as fake - sceptics are fond of pointing out, they even colonised southern Greenland on a temporary basis during Medieval times.

To achieve these reductions they propose phasing out coal - fired power stations by 2030 and scaling down the use of unconventional fossil fuels like tar sands.

A script pulled out the direct fossil fuel investments using the Carbon Underground 200 that identifies the top 100 public coal companies globally and the top 100 public oil and gas companies globally, ranked by the potential carbon emissions content of their proven reserves.

Firstly, there's the simple fact that is uses a massive amount of energy to function, and unless that energy comes from a sustainable source you're likely adding to the number of fossil fuels being burnt out there.

In fact, after 2050, Hansen's pathway (which, again, we used as the basis of our own) assumes that enhanced sinks will draw more CO2 out of the atmosphere than is emitted by fossil fuel combustion or deforestation, yielding a net budget of about negative 150 gigatonnes of CO2 over the second half of the 21st century.

If it's 0.8 degC warmer in 2030 and we are 30 years away from possible catastrophe, the carbon tax should have risen to levels that eliminate the rule out the use of fossil fuels for electricity and most transportation.

Backing out fossil fuels begins with the electricity sector, where the development of 5,153 gigawatts of new renewable generating capacity by 2020, over half of it from wind, would be more than enough to replace all the coal and oil and 70 percent of the natural gas now used to generate electricity.

Most developed countries supported a text calling for a transition to a green economy that included phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, the use and production of renewable energies, and creating «green» jobs in this new economic model.

Reacting to recent research finding that Americans were more likely to follow advice on cutting fossil fuel energy use from climate scientists who had also taken personal steps to decarbonize, Anthony Watts carried out what he described as an «ariel survey» of climate scientists» homes.

Tribal sovereignty and tribal politics have kept the Crow largely out of the eye of the storm on fossil fuels extraction, as jobs are hard to come by, political allies are able to keep jobs and others are not, and the cloak of invisibility which covers tribal sovereignty is likely to be used to keep others out.

When fossil fuel runs out, will it be possible to use the relative trickle of energy which comes from wind turbines and solar panels to mine and fabricate the raw materials necessary to build more solar panels and more wind turbines?

As the health impacts of air pollution, climate impacts and fossil fuel use become more present every day, the medical community has spoken out.

For example, fossil fuels may have been used to supply power to the phone factory and then to transport the phone to the retailer and then if I drove out to the mall to buy it... well as you can imagine calculating the carbon footprint of an action can be challenging, but just being able to make informed decisions when choosing one activity over another is what's really important.For example, I knew that sending a text message would be greener than driving across town to share my news.

Reacting to the launch of UK - Canada coal phase - out alliance, Chief Executive of the World Coal Association, Benjamin Sporton said: «With the world set to use fossil fuels, including coal, for the...

While other measures are also essential — including technological solutions, personal lifestyle changes and policies to reduce fossil fuel use and develop alternative energy — the positive impact of each of those is reduced and may even be completely cancelled out by adding emissions from hundreds of millions of new people as our population increases.

I accept a level of hypocrisy because to engage with every injustice all the time is not only to open ourselves up to way too much suffering but can lead to a form of self - disarmament (consider for example the committed climate activist who won't use fossil fuel transportation on principle and therefore can't get to the action to shut down the coal plant — who comes out losing?)

Because IPCC AR WG1 Fig 7.3 shows the following figures for anthropogenic fluxes (shown in red): Fossil Fuel: 6.4 GT out Oceans: 20 GT pa out; 22.2 in (A net anthropogenic sink of 2.2 GT pa) Land use change: 1.6 GT pa out; Land sink: 2.6 GT pa in (A net anthropogenic sink of 1 GT pa).

It turns out that the maximum temperature rise associated with future fossil fuel use is only 0.8 °C, less than half of the total.

A citizen group formed outside the venue holding a banner that read «get fossil fuels out of COP» and used the acronym CCS to spell out «Corporate Capture ≠ Solution.»

To me this would appear to be a worst case scenario, based on the least developed economies building up energy infrastructures largely using fossil fuels, in order to pull their populations out of poverty, as China and India are doing today (thereby reducing their rate of population growth as they become more affluent and improving their carbon efficiencies) and the remaining societies continuing to improve their overall carbon efficiencies as they have already been doing.

I came out of that experience, and some other work it led to, believing more strongly than ever that the first priority — and second and third priority — is to radically increase the efficiency of energy use, rapidly phase out fossil fuels, and replace them with renewables.

Thus from a logical and scientific standpoint, Germany should first phase - out the use of more dangerous and environmentally damaging fossil fuels before pursuing a phase - out of nuclear power.

Since we were running out of oil anyway, environmentally motivated efforts to limit fossil fuel consumption and increase our use of renewable energy boasted the additional virtue of being inevitable.