Sentences with phrase «per capita carbon»

Furthermore, China's 2010 per capita carbon emissions (6.2 metric tons) were still only about a third of the US (17.6 metric tons)[89], indicating much more growth can still occur [86].

However, the economic growth projections and, therefore, per capita carbon emission projections, assume today's poorest countries will not grow close to anywhere near the level of today's wealthy countries.

The nation's aggregate carbon emissions now top Japan's, 45 % of the land is degraded, groundwater levels are dropping rapidly... Here are the details: India Now World's Fourth Largest Carbon Emitter India's per capita carbon emissions remain very low — about 1 / 20th of those in the United States and probably actually below what could be extended equitably to everyone on the planet — but multiply those by one billion - plus people and it really adds up.

It ranks right at the top of per capita carbon emissions, with only a few oil - producing states in the Middle East doing more poorly.

Frank Kelly, US per capita carbon was 17.3 tpy in 2012, China was 7.2 tpy.

Even today, India's per capita carbon emission is less than one - tenth of that in the USA.

It took two centuries for daily per capita carbon consumption in America to reach the roughly 100 - pound level that currently lights homes, powers industry, and keeps the Internet humming.

Conservatives in Australia, Brazil, and Canada also show a proclivity for climate denial, though not at the same levels as the U.S. Outside of the oil - producing countries in the Middle East, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. have some of the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world.

Therefore, unless human overpopulation and even immigration (from poor to rich countries where per capita carbon emissions are higher) is addressed, it will be difficult to make a dent in the predicted rate of global temperature increase.

The average per capita carbon emission (1970 - 2011) was 4.2 tons CO2 per year.

Using the UN's «medium fertility» population growth rate projection and the assumed higher per capita carbon footprint plus the assumption that 50 % of the emitted CO2 will «remain» in the atmosphere, we arrive at an estimated atmospheric CO2 concentration of 640 ppmv by 2100.

If U.S. per capita carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were equal to those of its most populous state, California, global CO2 emissions would fall by 8 percent.

India in 2008 was ranked 138 in per capita carbon dioxide emission; its level of 1.5 ton compares with 17.5 tons for the US, according to UN data.

It's no coincidence that obesity is most prevalent in the US, where per capita carbon emissions exceed those of any other major nation, and it is becoming clear that obese people are having a direct impact on the climate.

Germany appears to be closing its ecological deficit, primarily by reducing its per capita carbon Footprint and increasing crop biocapacity at the same time.

The highest per capita carbon emissions are in several small oil and gas producing countries.

What nonsense it would be to argue that we have some sort of prolonged «right» to have per capita carbon dioxide emissions that are «way» larger than some level that (some would argue) everyone else in the world must have?!

Given the high per capita carbon emissions in the US, this is not a good thing.

Given the high per capita carbon emissions in the US, this is not a good thing.

The report said the trend in per capita carbon emissions over the five years to 2012 was down in Australia, the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain, the European Union, South Africa, Italy, France and Mexico.

Not exact matches

Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose by an average of 0.73 percent for every 1 percent growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Richard York of the University of Oregon wrote in his report.

As of 2007, the Juhnde bioenergy village had reduced its carbon dioxide output by 3,300 tons per year, or by 60 percent per capita.

The World Bank reports that Mexico's per capita emissions are 3.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide, just a hair below the global average of 4 metric tons.

This second calculation allowed the researchers to see that people with higher incomes are responsible for a larger per capita amount of carbon emissions, Ivanova said.

Chinese carbon emissions per capita recently exceeded those of the European Union for the first time, according to Robbie Andrew of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway, in a study for the Global Carbon Project.

WHILE Australia's new carbon tax, announced last week, is a step in the right direction it is unlikely to change the country's status as the largest per - capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the developed world.

Because of all of these factors, Vancouver has the lowest per - capita carbon emissions of any major city in the Western Hemisphere.

Over the past quarter century, G20 carbon dioxide emissions had risen by almost 50 percent while per capita emissions had gained by about 18 percent, reflecting population growth, it said.

«The broader question is, should we spend some of our carbon budget to allow them to increase their incremental emissions if it translates into greater per capita energy use, both in the economy and really lifestyles that more mirror the developed world?»

South Africa is, per capita, one of the 20 highest carbon emitters in the world.

The suggestion of a carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies with all revenues distributed to the public on a per capita basis [237] has received at least limited support [238].

To understand why India, despite its fast - growing emissions, has demanded and gotten what its environment minister called «carbon space,» just do a side by side comparison of the United States, where the average person's activities result in about 17 tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, and India, where 400 million people still lack an electric light or clean cooking fuel and where per capita annual emissions are 1.9 tons per person.

The US has to address our own big input into the climate change equation and that means using whatever means — probably a carbon tax — to drive down per capita consumption.

In a world where people are consuming increasingly more resources (including carbon) per capita, it only seems logical that to make significant improvements to the earth's natural environment we must address consumption AND population.

Where would carbon dioxide emissions be if everyone on Earth was using fossil fuels at the same pace, per capita, as the United States is now?

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.

I understand why China and India believe «any extra costs for them to divert from established trajectories for carbon dioxide emissions as they pursue prosperity must be covered by the established industrial powers, which still have many times greater emissions on a per - capita basis».

The «balance - of - world» side rightfully claims that Americans, on a per - capita basis, at least, have been responsible for much more than their fair share of the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere, including that deemed responsible for already measurable «ocean acidification».

Essentially, China and India, the emerging giants in the global greenhouse, are saying that any extra costs for them to divert from established trajectories for carbon dioxide emissions as they pursue prosperity must be covered by the established industrial powers, which still have many times greater emissions on a per - capita basis and spent a century freely adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in building their wealth.

The five studies estimated that India's annual per - capita emissions in 2030 - 31 will be the equivalent of 2.77 tonnes to 5.00 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Europeans typically appear on the lower end of charts analyzing the carbon footprint of developed nations, and have a higher recycling rate and lower per capita waste disposal, when compared to America.

Surely it would be good to give incentives for countries to control both population and carbon emissions as you can have decreasing carbon emissions per capita for instance completely wiped out or worse by increasing population.

Is there any validity in the idea of measuring relative carbon emissions for a country on the basis of a per area measurement rather than a per capita measurement?

It seems to me that doing carbon emissions on a per capita basis for developing countries ignores the elephant in the room of increasing population size.

The fact that the world's highest per capita emitter and largest coal exporter puts a price on carbon sends a signal internationally.

A new report shows the enormous differences in per - capita carbon dioxide emissions in the countries that are the world's biggest sources of this greenhouse gas.

Try telling India to leave its coal in the ground after examining the latest data on per capita emissions of carbon dioxide from the Global Carbon Project, released yesterday — with India's billion - plus citizens at 1.9 tons of CO2 emitted per person per year, the European Union and China tied (for the moment) at around 7 tons and the United States at 16.4 tons:

Of course, that is impossible to do immediately, and for the short term current carbon quotas must be largely based on a per capita measure, but over the longer term, that should change to a per hectare measure — which would give all countries significant incentive to reduce, and eventually reverse, their population growth.

It would also mean the damages resulting from carbon dioxide emissions would be less for every ton of CO2 emitted (~ 20 tons of CO2 annually per capita in the US).

Australia's annual per capita emissions are 27.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 - e), the highest in the industrialised world.