Sentences with phrase «possible emissions policy»

Not exact matches

If your condition for GHG policy is that you must impose the same price on all sectors of the economy because you want to be cost - effective, that rules out higher prices on some sectors where deep emissions reductions are possible, or lower prices in more politically sensitive areas to ensure you get a policy in place at all.

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.»

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.

Technological and policy progress are being made on a number of possible solutions to rein emissions in and keep climate stable.

Allthough this is only one of several possible offset sources under consideration by policy makers, we find already that, without restrictions on offset eligibility, CORSIA will not incentivise any further emission reductions beyond those that will happen without the scheme and will also not provide price signals that reward previous investments in CDM projects.

As for fossil fuel CO2 emissions, considering the large, long - lived fossil fuel infrastructure in place, the science is telling us that policy should be set to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible.

An accompanying report to be published in November from the UNFCCC secretariat — «Climate Action Now» a Summary for Policymakers — will underline the enormous emission reduction potential and multiple economic benefits possible from best practise climate policies across major sectors from energy to transport, from buildings to forests.

The massive reports and shorter summaries are certainly relevant to global and national energy policies, describing the possible climatic outcomes of a wide range of societal paths, from business as usual to aggressive emissions curbs.

If it is China, then all the more reason to support China's low - carbon growth policies, to demand more nuclear / hydro / CCS / wind etc and to work as hard as possible at crafting a truly global emissions treaty that will include targets of some sort for all major emitters.

With a 20 % cut, it is still possible to place the burden on the countries that can be convinced t cut emissions, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the science be fixed around the policy.

Exxon scientists and managers warned of possible future policies to cut fossil fuel emissions, internal memos show, and the company established an ambitious in - house climate research program in part to have a credible voice in the development of such rules.

Unlike the scenarios developed by the IPCC and reported in Nakicenovic et al. (2000), which examined possible global futures and associated greenhouse - related emissions in the absence of measures designed to limit anthropogenic climate change, RCP4.5 is a stabilization scenario and assumes that climate policies, in this instance the introduction of a set of global greenhouse gas emissions prices, are invoked to achieve the goal of limiting emissions and radiative forcing.

By putting a price on carbon, these policies give businesses the incentive to innovate so they can cut emissions at the lowest possible cost.

It addressed, through presentations, subsequent question and answer sessions and a general discussion, the following issues: clarification of the nature and level of the targets communicated by developed country Parties; assumptions and conditions associated with the targets; commonalities and differences of approach in measuring the progress towards the targets; comparability of emission reduction efforts by developed country Parties, and options and ways to increase the level of ambition of the pledges; relevant policies and measures to support the targets, and experience with low - emission development strategies; and possible ways forward.

Companies have the opportunity to work with governments to help shape the most effective policy framework possible, ensuring long - term profitability for companies and a clear path to national and international emissions reduction.

Another major international study by Project Drawdown in 2017 identified practical policy measures that could be taken to minimise greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.

Another major international study in 2017 identified practical policy measures that could be taken to minimise greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible.

«I think one unintended outcome of the Paris Agreement was that it made the public think limiting warming to 1.5 C is possible with only marginally stronger policy from government on reducing emissions and this is simply not the case.»

Second, as a possible direct consequence of the communication bias, one in five Australians incorrectly think that reducing emissions will cause future incomes to fall below current levels and subscription to this belief is a powerful predictor of opposition to carbon policy [13].

Because of this, perhaps the most important immediate goal of climate change policy proponents is to help educate civil society and governments about the need to move urgently to make extremely rapid decreases in ghg emissions whereever governments can and to the maximum extent possible in light of the policy implications of limiting national ghg emissions to levels constrained by a carbon budget and in response to what fairness requires of nations..

It's also possible that air pollution policies for non-greenhouse gas pollutants, the emissions of some of which are highly correlated with CO2 emissions, may play an important role.

NRDC favors more economical and environmentally sustainable approaches to reducing both U.S. and global carbon emissions, focusing on the widest possible implementation of end - use energy - efficiency improvements, and on policies to accelerate the commercialization of clean, flexible, renewable energy technologies — and use them to power our vehicles and homes.

The criteria include: using natural pests and composting in place of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers whenever possible; implementing no - burn policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut the risk of fires spreading into forest areas; sparing forests with high conservation value from development; taking measures to reduce air pollution; and creating catchment ponds to prevent palm oil mill effluent — a byproduct — from entering waterways where it would damage aquatic habitats.

It's also possible that air pollution policies for non ‑ greenhouse gas pollutants, the emissions of some of which are highly correlated with CO2 emissions, may play an important role.

Meeting the Paris pledge will require additional action: Reducing emissions 26 - 28 % below 2005 levels by 2025 will not be possible through current and planned policies alone.

This is the best possible policy path for emissions reductions, given the economic, technological, and geophysical constraints that we have estimated.

In language that even George Orwell would not have imagined possible, Federal Environment Minister Leona Agglukaq has described the Environment Canada report as showing «significant progress», even as the projected emissions trend moves in further way from the 2020 target as a direct consequence of government policy of encouraging growth in the energy sector in Western Canada.

But along with emissions - reduction mitigation to reduce the rate and magnitude of climate change as expeditiously as possible, a comprehensive risk - management climate policy will necessarily require a strategic and multifaceted effort at preparedness to limit vulnerabilities and increase resilience to impacts that can't be avoided.

Thus, to the greatest extent possible, policies at all levels should be designed and implemented to meet four goals: (i) In sustainable ways, maintain and increase the security of food supplies for food insecure people, particularly in developing countries; (ii) Enable small - scale food producers and other vulnerable populations to become more resilient to climate change; (iii) Sustainably reduce emissions from the agricultural sector; and (iv) Reduce emissions from the conversion of other land to agriculture.

To better understand the potential of emissions policies, studies are needed that assess possible future health impacts under alternative assumptions about future emissions and climate across multiple spatial scales.

Reporting companies, particularly those in fossil fuel industries, may wish to review their disclosure practices regarding the possible financial impact of climate change and of proposed laws, regulations and policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

It is now plain that it is not possible to have a «climate policy» that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal.

Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy, detailing possible hidden costs of carbon emissions, was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The group recommended that the government should resolve the uncertainties over its plans for electricity market reform as soon as possible, as well as setting out a clear policy on the carbon price floor — which ensures companies and generators pay a minimum price for their emissions - and work with industry to «foster a constructive dialogue with the public on energy policy».

While some have fallen under the spell of electrification advocates, energy providers and policy makers should focus on policies that reduce emissions and keep costs as low as possible for hard working families and businesses.

Options include either a cap - and - trade or tax policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest possible cost.»

After all this analysis, it's possible to predict how producers and consumers of energy will react to policies that put a price on emissions and how much those reactions will end up costing the economy as a whole.

A new analysis from the World Resources Institute (WRI) seeks to answer that question by looking at seven different studies that estimate what the US» annual emissions levels will be in 2025 under a range of possible scenarios based on Trump's policies (such as whether the Trump Admin succeeds in overturning the Clean Power Plan or not) versus what would happen if Obama's policies were left intact.

To calculate possible benefits of policy action, the study provides «maximum feasible reduction scenarios» that take into account the incorporation of emissions control technologies such as seawater scrubbers that absorb sulfur dioxide emitted during the burning of diesel fuel.

It also assumes that countries adopt the most cost - effective emissions policies possible — which is far from a given.

«Our policy implication is that we have to have a carbon fee and some of the major countries need to agree on that and if that were done it would be possible to actually get global emissions to begin to come down rapidly I think,» Hansen said.

Opponents of ambitious national climate policy — such as energy - intensive industry — on the other hand, maintain that Germany must prioritise economic development, to show it is possible to preserve its status as an economic powerhouse while cutting emissions.