Sentences with phrase «provide negative emissions»

But Fuhr and Hallstrom are wrong that these negative consequences definitely «would» happen, especially if a large portfolio of CDR approaches (spanning not just bio-CCS but also biochar, direct air capture, reforestation / ecosystem restoration, land management, and enhanced mineral weathering) were pursued to provide negative emissions.

The option value for CCS to provide negative emissions is entirely missing from this video's story about why we should develop and deploy CCS at scale today.

Not exact matches

This means, for example, that the marginal emission rate for providing power with natural gas to compensate for fluctuations in wind power is positive in California but negative in, say, Ohio.

Once the ice reaches the equator, the equilibrium climate is significantly colder than what would initiate melting at the equator, but if CO2 from geologic emissions build up (they would, but very slowly — geochemical processes provide a negative feedback by changing atmospheric CO2 in response to climate changes, but this is generally very slow, and thus can not prevent faster changes from faster external forcings) enough, it can initiate melting — what happens then is a runaway in the opposite direction (until the ice is completely gone — the extreme warmth and CO2 amount at that point, combined with left - over glacial debris available for chemical weathering, will draw CO2 out of the atmosphere, possibly allowing some ice to return).

A tax only provides a negative incentive for exceeding a mandated level of emissions.

In the near term, federal policy could: i) level the playing field between air captured CO2 and fossil - fuel derived CO2 by providing subsidies or credits for superior carbon lifecycle emissions that account for recovering carbon from the atmosphere; ii) provide additional research funding into air capture R&D initiatives, along with other areas of carbon removal, which have historically been unable to secure grants; and iii) ensure air capture is deployed in a manner that leads to sustainable net - negative emissions pathways in the future, within the framework of near - term national emissions reductions, and securing 2 °C - avoiding emissions trajectories.

Early policy wins for direct air capture could provide an important entry point for larger carbon capture and negative emissions policy efforts in the future (Stephens, 2009).

Over the long run, determining the «additionality» and global price impacts of oil recovered through EOR will be critical for determining whether CO2 EOR provides a net negative source of emissions.

«Engineered, nonbiological approaches [to negative emissions], such as enhanced weathering and direct air capture... are energy - intensive and expensive [but] may eventually provide useful options for [CO2 removal] at scale.

Heritage research has also found that these models are extremely sensitive to reasonable changes in assumptions; in fact, under some assumptions one of the models provides a negative SCC, suggesting net economic benefits to carbon dioxide emissions.

First, it provides a preliminary estimate of anticipated reductions in temperatures per 100 PgC CO2, providing a guide to policymakers who might contemplate more limited uses of negative emissions strategies than contemplated in this study.

Second, the study provides a pointed reminder of the fact that a negative emissions strategy would likely necessitate a multi-generational societal commitment, with all of the implications that this would hold for governance, ethics and practical logistics.

In fact, under reasonable alternative assumptions, one of the models used to estimate the SCC provides a negative estimate of the SCC — implying that there are net benefits to global warming, which would argue for subsidizing, not taxing, CO2 emissions.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

Bio energy as a renewable energy form can provide near neutral emissions, but when combined with CCS, the result is net negative emissions.

But if we can figure out an economically - viable way around this problem, non-CO2 GHG removal could provide a valuable tool in our negative emissions toolkit.

So, lolwot, all your words provide NO EVIDENCE that the added CO2 from human emissions COULD (or will) be catastrophic or even have a negative, rather than a positive net overall impact.

While renewable energy provides obvious environmental benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants associated with electricity generation, the infrastructure required to add large amounts of renewable resources can have negative environmental effects.

And who knows whether in thirty years, negative emissions may appear much more feasible than they do now, providing the option of cooling the planet back down again at some point.