Sentences with phrase «policies like carbon»

The next step is getting those folks who are now making this link to start supporting policies like carbon pricing; that's another battle altogether.

Until I have seen the people in positions of influence have seriously considered the alternative — such as I suggested earlier on this thread: https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/21/social-cost-of-carbon/#comment-416438 — I am likely to remain opposed to high cost policies like carbon pricing and policies that subsidise and effectively mandate renewable energy.

We would have a robust solution and no need for policies like carbon pricing and binding legal international agreements.

Policies like a carbon tax and actions like divestment are not mutually exclusive; they're actually mutually reinforcing.

If your CAGW is a scientific claim, it makes no sense to integrate policies (let alone specific policies like carbon taxes) into it.

It makes makes the point once again, the engineering input and the engineers quality of analysis and documentation is essential before we invest in very high cost and potentially economically damaging policies like carbon pricing, etc..

Opinion: Some say Canada's emission levels don't require onerous policies like carbon pricing.

Not exact matches

However, the Pan Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change lays out a number of policies that will compel more clean tech innovation in Canada, he said, including a price on pollution with a carbon price, to be in place across Canada by the start of next year, as well as a promised national clean fuels strategy, better energy efficiency standards and limits on greenhouse gases like methane.

Importantly, none of these groups could point to federal government dysfunction on climate policy to defend their own inaction, he said, because the wild rhetoric of government dissidents like Craig Kelly does not reflect mainstream government policy for the nation to meet its Paris commitments for a 26 - 28 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.

Conversely, climate policy that results in little or no effort to control greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide would likely result in a substantial release of carbon from the permafrost region by 2300, the study found.

What is your position on cap - and - trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change — and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?

«As the Federal Government begins negotiations with the new Senate to repeal the carbon price, any technologies, policies or plans that aim to tackle climate change should take water usage into account, especially in arid countries like Australia,» Dr Wallis said.

Lower rates of asthma and other health problems are frequently cited as benefits of policies aimed at cutting carbon emissions from sources like power plants and vehicles, because these policies also lead to reductions in other harmful types of air pollution.

Wigley also assumed no energy policy changes from current standards, like renewable energy incentives or carbon taxes.

Unilever was also a player in palm oil trader Wilmar's recent agreement to adopt a no - deforestation policy, which prohibits its suppliers from establishing plantations on lands with large amounts of carbon — like peat soils — or lands with a high conservation value (ClimateWire, Dec. 8, 2013).

Yet, how much to invest in policies — like setting an appropriate carbon tax — to protect future generations from environmental destruction depends on how society chooses to value human population, according to a new study published Oct. 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

What the authors would like to see is the prospect of limited and expensive coal get a serious consideration; currently, most energy policy decisions, such as a focus on carbon capture and storage for coal plants, assume that coal will remain cheap enough to compensate for its added costs.

Resolution in Opposition to a Carbon Tax: Despite support for a carbon tax from ALEC members like ExxonMobil, ALEC is creating a model bill to weigh in on what will become the keystone policy battle for climate change science deniers, a battle that is already creating a rift among conservative groups, like the Koch - funded Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute against the R Street Institute.

A scheme like this would be the international framework under which national «cap - and - trade» policies and international carbon - trading can be implemented in a manner that is accountable, equitable, and actually solves the problem globally.

The goal of the paper I have just written is to «restart» the discussion of climate change, which, as I see it, is on the verge of disappearing from view, putting into cold storage both 1) the policy initiatives like carbon prices and regulations that could have short - term impact on wedge technologies like conventional renewables, efficiency, and CCS, and 2) commitments to the advancement of a climate - change - driven research frontier.

``... the company [Exxon Mobil], the world's largest oil and gas concern, has increased donations to Washington - based policy groups that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming are too heavy handed.

It is findings like these that cause me to take a different stance on climate progress than Joe Romm, who demands that anyone seriously engaged in assessing climate policy pick a number — either for a safe target for stabilization of carbon dioxide concentrations or temperature rise.

[Insert, Nov. 11, 12:03 p.m. Brad Plumer at Vox explores a climate policy that conservatives, at least in theory, should like — a revenue - neutral carbon tax.]

Climate and energy policies are well connected — reducing oil depletion and dependency should be achieved through deploying renewable sources and in effect will bring reducing of carbon dioxide — thus what climate policies were (yet) not able to bring, peak oil and high oil prices (however with more negative impacts, like social unrest and geo - political instability) certainly will.

Like many of his colleagues, climate scientist Kevin Anderson has argued that since there's only a finite amount of carbon that can be emitted before the world is committed to «dangerous» climate change, and we've waited so long for serious climate policies, a «war - like» mobilization is now requiLike many of his colleagues, climate scientist Kevin Anderson has argued that since there's only a finite amount of carbon that can be emitted before the world is committed to «dangerous» climate change, and we've waited so long for serious climate policies, a «war - like» mobilization is now requilike» mobilization is now required.

Like all the IPCC scenarios, B1 does not assume that any measures are taken for climate policy reasons (e.g., Kyoto, or carbon sequestration).

A «pre-pay» carbon policy might work something like this: before a company extracts a ton of carbon from the ground (be it in the form of oil, natural gas, coal, trees, soil, etc.), it would have to «pre-pay» for a credit demonstrating that the organization (or a third - party) had already removed and sequestered an equivalent ton of carbon from the atmosphere.

I'd argue we should not be implementing costly and economically damaging carbon pricing policies (like Australia's CO2 tax and ETS) on the basis of such papers.

Tubman co-authored a recent C2ES report called «Leveraging Natural Gas to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions,» which recognized natural gas as a short - term climate solution but called for more aggressive policies and investments to promote zero - carbon sources like renewables over the long haul.

How much should we be prepared to spend on CAGW given that the policies proposed to date (like renewable energy and carbon pricing) have virtually not chance of having any effect on the climate?

He criticized policies like granting carbon credits to polluters as a «ploy» that would «provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment,» but would not «allow for the radical change which present circumstances require.»

There are a number of transport emissions reduction policy measures that Congress could pursue, but the one that will have the most immediate impact is the one that will demand more from those modes of transportation that are currently the most fuel and carbon efficient — like passenger rail.

Dramatic changes would naturally have to occur as a result — from quick wins like carbon taxes and energy efficiency regulations, to longer - term policies like phasing out combustion - engine cars and carbon - neutral building regulations.

Polling by the National Surveys on Energy and Environment, a joint project by the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy and the Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College, shows that Americans in general (and Republicans in particular) still don't like the idea of a tax on carbon emissions in general.

Call this the «no one likes a sellout» theory — it's the idea that a simpler, stronger policy (say, a flat carbon tax), combined with fervent grassroots pressure, might have stood a better chance.

They have stuck to their guns on issues like carbon pricing, and advanced serious and credible policies on tax and public expenditure, something that hasn't been attempted since John Hewson's Fightback!

And worse still they continually argue for irrational policies — like government imposed carbon pricing schemes and very high cost renewable energy while blocking nuclear power development.

Provinces, states, cities, business, investors, and culture - shaping institutions look for political institutions like the G20 to affirm the global direction of travel, which is mainstreaming climate action and the low - carbon transition,» said Maeve McLynn, finance and subsidies policy coordinator at Climate Action Network Europe.

The policy would charge major polluters like PepcoExelon and Washington Gas for their carbon emissions.

And national environmental policy leaders like Daniel Esty think all that's needed to move the country towards a green economy is a carbon tax.

For instance, a market - based policy like a price on carbon might encourage consumers to buy more fuel - efficient cars, but it will fall well short of revolutionizing global energy infrastructure and technologies.

More importantly, a «fee» legal structure limits the uses of revenue from the policy to addressing carbon / pollution issues, not broader issues like rural economic development (as in 6203) or tax reform (as in I - 732).

Under the «new policies» scenario, the IEA says gas has a «very bright» outlook for the gas industry, particularly countries like Australia, the US and China, which have a lot of it to exploit, although the game plan relies on carbon capture being a serious and cost effective option by the mid 2020s.

And of course my favorite non-BRICS, as it has a very USA - like economy in miniature (except a stable, growing economy and well - managed low - corporate - tax haven that uses direct democracy to decide tax issues) with a carbon cycle pricing scheme that could become a model for a made - in - America policy that puts revenues from carbon - emission - pricing in the pockets of the owners of the carbon cycle — the citizens, directly, British Columbia.

However, a debate remains around how best to accomplish that goal and whether carbon pricing policy must also be tasked with addressing broader social and environmental challenges (like other pollution problems, worker displacement, economic inequality, etc.).

Instead, world leaders have pandered and caved to the powerful fossil fuel lobby: rubber stamping massive carbon - intensive infrastructure, unlocking billions of tonnes of new carbon in hard - to - reach places like the deep offshore ocean, the arctic, or hard - to - extract resources like tar sands, and proceeded to design energy policy around scenarios incompatible with a safe global climate.

And while indicators like ocean heat content may respond more quickly or dramatically to the carbon emissions that cause climate change, surface temperature is more closely related to the effects of climate change — and the effects, after all, are what climate policies at any level are intended to ease.

So those advocating we waste money on carbon tax and ETS, renewable energy, and world government initiatives like Agenda 21, should stop advocating for those high costs, economy damaging, wasteful policies and start advising people they got it wrong.

I then decided to go for the anger triple - play by faulting industry in general for painting the picture that the oil sands could not compete under a carbon policy, while at the same time pointing to notable exceptions like Suncor's Rick George.

This strategy could help policy makers overcome a fundamental conflict in the debate over global warming: carbon dioxide, the main heat - trapping gas in the air, is an unavoidable byproduct of burning fossil fuels like coal and oil — and combustion of fossil fuels is the foundation of industrial societies.