Sentences with phrase «own carbon debt»

As a renewable source of energy, biofuels have suffered ongoing criticism for their hefty carbon debt.

Growing cellulosic feedstocks, however, neutralizes the carbon debt, said lead author Ilya Gelfand, a researcher at Michigan State University's Kellogg Biological Station.

The researchers found that no - till management in combination corn - soybean fields and corn - only fields created a carbon debt lasting 29 and 40 years, respectively.

«It takes decades to centuries to repay the carbon debt that is created from clearing land.»

«I know when I look at a tree that half the dry weight of it is carbon,» says ecologist David Tilman of the University of Minnesota, coauthor of the other study which examined the «carbon debt» embedded in any biofuel.

And it would take centuries for us to pay off that carbon debt.

This has introduced dubious concepts, such as repaying «carbon debt» through «negative emissions» to offset delayed mitigation — in theory,» Geden wrote in a commentary published yesterday in the journal Nature.

«Negative emissions «simply work like a «carbon debt» mechanism, but it's somewhat dubious to count on «payback» starting in 2050.

There is little information available about what the building is made of, and no accounting of the carbon footprint of its materials and construction, so it is hard to really determine at what point this «zero carbon» building overcomes the carbon debt of its construction, but I suspect it will be a while.

This means that the carbon debt incurred by building the structure has a relatively brief period of utility, before the structure is demolished and another structure built, incurring additional carbon debt.

They talked about the «carbon debt» they were owed by the industrialized world.

The Rapture wrt AGW is of course the sweet by and by of billions of dollars in «carbon debt» reparations, carbon trading profits, and «green» jobs for the true believers and those suffering victims of capitalism.

«[P] rojected growth in wood harvest for bioenergy would increase atmospheric CO2 for at least a century because new carbon debt continuously exceeds NPP.»

More precisely, atmospheric CO2 rises as long as NPP [net primary production] remains below the initial carbon debt incurred each year plus the fluxes of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere.»

«Growth in wood supply causes steady growth in atmospheric CO2 because more CO2 is added to the atmosphere every year in initial carbon debt than is paid back by regrowth, worsening global warming and climate change.

Burning wood instead of coal therefore creates a carbon debt — an immediate increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to fossil energy — that can be repaid over time only as — and if — NPP [net primary production] rises above the flux of carbon from biomass and soils to the atmosphere on the harvested lands.»

The qualitative result that growth in bioenergy raises atmospheric CO2 does not depend on the parameters: as long as bioenergy generates an initial carbon debt, increasing harvests mean more is «borrowed» every year than is paid back.

If the carbon debt of 568 tons were to be valued at $ 40 per ton, the total owed to the poor countries would amount of $ 23 trillion dollars, implying climate debt payments of about $ 600 billion per year over the next 40 years.

This large «carbon debt», and the related debt of energy, must be paid off if they are to cut emissions over their lifetime.

It doesn't look like it is LEED - certified, but being more than half a century old, visitors could take heart in the fact that the building's carbon debt has probably been paid off a while ago.

The new research looks at the «carbon payback time» or «carbon debt» of various biofuel feedstocks including oil palm, sugar cane, and soy.

Focusing on the carbon emissions associated with tropical deforestation, it showed that converting rainforests or grasslands to corn, soybean, or palm oil biofuel production led to a carbon emissions increase — a «biofuel carbon debt» — that was at least 37 times greater than the annual reduction in greenhouse gases resulting from the shift from fossil fuels to biofuels.

For forests in the central and eastern US, which supply much of the wood used in UK power plants, the payback time for this carbon debt ranges from 44 to 104 years, depending on forest type — and assuming the land remains forest.

If the land is developed, or converted to agricultural use, then the carbon debt is never repaid and grows over time as the harvested land emits additional carbon from soils.

These forests grow back slowly, so it takes a long time to repay the initial «carbon debt» incurred by burning wood instead of coal.

Even if the forests eventually regrow, notes Prof. Sterman, each year the new carbon debt from increased harvest and combustion outweighs the regrowth, just as borrowing more on a credit card each month than one is able to pay back will steadily increase what he or she owes.

While enthusiasts say, not unreasonably, that personal rationing schemes would have an immense educational value, making people aware of their carbon debts, some people are likely to see personal carbon rationing as yet another unwarranted government imposition.

For a given power source, the emissions released during its construction put it into «carbon debt» and it takes a while of generating carbon - free energy for it to work itself to the break - even point.

We must pay our carbon debts.

The «carbon debt» incurred by the construction of power plants plays a big role in your paper, partially explaining why the carbon benefits of clean power take so long to manifest.

Where did you get your info on carbon debt?

«Clearing the natural vegetation mobilises the stocked carbon and may lead to a carbon debt, which could render the overall GHG mitigation effect of biofuels questionable for the following decades.»

The future isn't bleak, it's simply not using real trees to absorb our carbon debt.

At a time when we have run out of carbon budget and run up carbon debt for avoiding climate catastrophe, the oil production in this country has shot up.

We have run out of carbon budget, and are in substantial carbon debt.

It means we have not only run out of carbon budget, but we have accumulated substantial carbon debt.

Any further carbon expenditure goes toward increasing carbon debt.

A new study finds oil palm plantations store less carbon than previously believed, suggesting that palm oil produced through the conversion of tropical forests carries a substantial carbon debt.

At best, there is no carbon budget left, and at worst (depending on the temperature target selected), we have run up substantial carbon debt.

You kids who don't recall when gasoline was 33 cents a gallon aren't in near the carbon debt we old guys mostly accumulated, just driving around.

And, that only gives us a reasonable chance to stay within the scientifically unacceptable level of 2 C. For high chance, we have run out of carbon budget, and if we are to have any hope of coming near the scientifically desirable level of 1 C, we have run out of carbon budget and run up carbon debt.

To stay within the temperature target / ceiling of ~ 1 C that leading climate scientists recommend, we have run out of carbon budget, and have accumulated significant carbon debt.

So, for a 1.5 C ceiling, especially for a relatively high chance, we have also run out of carbon budget, and piled up some carbon debt.

I show that for high chance of staying under 2 C (~ 90 % or more), we have run out of carbon budget, and for even coming close to the desired target of ~ 1 C, we have not only run out of carbon budget, but have accumulated substantial carbon debt.

We have run out of carbon budget, and are heavily in carbon debt.

Second, to get anywhere near the required temperature ceilings, we have not only run out of carbon budget, but have run up considerable carbon debt already.

In practical terms, that means that the amount of time it takes to payback the carbon debt of producing biofuel on that land to replace fossil fuels is even greater than we thought; and pretty much makes palm oil biodiesel produced in such conditions worse than petroleum - based diesel.

If we want to avoid the Apocalypse, the message we need to get out is the following: 1) we are out of carbon budget, and into carbon debt; 2) we need to eliminate all non-essential uses of fossil energy, and make the essential uses more efficient.

We are out of carbon budget; EVERY expenditure of fossil fuel from now on increases our carbon debt, and reduces our chances of avoiding the climate Apocalypse.

S2) that if the smallest area and carbon debt from LUC are given priority, then oil palm would be the best feedstock for biodiesel by far.