Sentences with phrase «reduce atmospheric emissions»

The UN protocol requires every nation on earth to reduce their atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gas to 94.8 % of 1990 levels to «prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.»

Despite EEI's 1989 pledge to reduce atmospheric emissions, annual CO2 emissions from the electricity sector

Despite EEI's 1989 pledge to reduce atmospheric emissions, annual CO2 emissions from the electricity sector remained higher in 2016 than they were when McCollum testified in 1989, due in large part to ongoing efforts by some in the industry to sow doubt about climate science and block legal limits on CO2 emissions from power plants.

«The electric utility industry is aggressively pursuing several paths which are designed to meet the nation's energy needs while reducing atmospheric emissions,» McCollum nonetheless pledged.

ACR's objective in developing this methodology was to create an accounting framework that offers both credibility and integrity for reducing atmospheric emissions from agricultural applications.

In this area you can find information on how the coal industry invests in the protection of precious resources such as land and water and tackles the challenge of reducing atmospheric emissions.

Not exact matches

They reduce power consumption and have lower atmospheric emissions and wastes than the conventional breweries.

Located near Metro Center at 1200 New York Avenue, N.W., with a primary entrance at 12th and H Streets, N.W., the AAAS building was originally designed to help reduce environmentally harmful atmospheric emissions, increase energy efficiency, and promote good health and comfort for employees.

«Stabilizing or reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, therefore, requires very deep reductions in future emissions to compensate for past emissions that are still circulating in the Earth system,» the draft report says.

The model also considered how reducing soot could impact other atmospheric emissions, including sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and organic carbon.

Environmentalists, many of whom believe that the term «clean coal» is an oxymoron, nonetheless view the project's cancellation as yet another indication that the Bush administration lacks the commitment required to reduce the rate of growth in atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions.

A curious detail also shown by the study is a reduction in atmospheric pollution from lead during the last few decades, which, as Lozano concludes, «suggests that the global measures taken to reduce lead emissions, such as the use of lead - free gasoline, have helped to reduce the levels of this metal in the atmosphere.»

«The longer we wait to reduce emissions,» Canadell says, «the harder the cuts that will be required to stabilize atmospheric CO2 emissions.»

«Today atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are implicated in climate change, and carbon sequestered in forest biomass reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

«If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,» says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Professor Sybren said: «It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

If humanity does not act to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will continue to climb and Earth's average temperature will escalate.

Despite national and international efforts to reduce anthropogenic emissions, growing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide will yield planetary warming and associated impacts for the foreseeable future.

That allows scientists to learn how they adapt to climate change and what greater role those lands can play in reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, especially protecting forests.

Once global carbon dioxide emissions had been reduced to zero, some combination of atmospheric decay and carbon dioxide extraction, probably partially offset by some level of carbon dioxide re-release from the worlds oceans, might possibly reduce the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to comply with the NAAQS.

The absolutely essential first step in reducing the atmospheric concentration to 350 ppm is a total global cessation of anthropogenic carbon emissions.

• Lower emissions, with better control of NOx and HC throughout the range of engine operating speeds, reducing atmospheric pollution.

Until atmospheric levels of CO2 move over perhaps a decade long, we cant be sure we are really reducing emissions.

According to James Hansen, if we reduce emissions by 3 % / year starting in 2020, atmospheric CO2 levels will stabilize and we can stay below +1.5 ºC warming (see his Young Peoples Burden Paper (Figures 10 - 12): https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf

My understanding is the world has had reduced emissions since 2014, but it hasn't shown up in the keeling curve atmospheric concentrations because its been obscured by the big 2015 el nino generating a lot of CO2 related to forests etc..

Putting the effects of higher atmospheric concentrations aside, if we double, triple, quadruple CO2 concentrations, how long does it take to reduce those emissions?

In a printed statement, Pieter Tans of the agency's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., said the only way to stop growth in the atmospheric concentration of the gases is to reduce emissions enough that natural processes can keep pace.

However NET's have value in 1) reducing atmospheric CO2 over much longer time frames and 2) as an offset for emissions that are difficult to reduce, such as heavy industry.

Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature.

With a lifetime of ~ 10 years, spreading emissions over 30 - year period would of course reduce the peak atmospheric burden (though CH4 lifetime would presumably increase with higher CH4 concentration).

While CO2 atmospheric concentration undeniably remains the main driver of climate change, CO2 is not the only GHG, and peaking and reducing CO2 emissions is not the ONLY policy being discussed.

Any program that reduces current emissions by some percent but doesn't contribute to cutting long - term atmospheric GHGs will not produce tangible climate change benefits except the lame claim that «things would be even worse» if we do nothing.

It restores degraded soils, enhances biomass production, purifies surface and ground waters, and reduces the rate of enrichment of atmospheric CO2 by offsetting emissions due to fossil fuel.

All of this is reason for everyone and his brother, aunt and sister to greatly reduce their own GHG emissions, and to scream bloody murder till every corporation, institution and governmental body they have any influence over to immediately institute policies to rapidly bring down GHG emissions and look at reliable ways of drawing down atmospheric CO2 levels directly (especially replanting grasslands in the north, tree planting toward the equator where albedo change is not an issue).

However, we only started seriously reducing CFC emissions 20 years ago (with the Montreal Protocol - the ozone version of the Kyoto Protocol), and CFCs have a long atmospheric lifetime, so the recovery will take time.

«As a society, we need to better understand the potential cost and performance of CDR strategies for the same reason that we need to better understand the cost and performance of emission mitigation strategies — they may be important parts of a portfolio of options to stabilize and reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide»

If the anthropogenic forcing wouldn't keep increasing anymore (because we would manage to suddenly reduce CO2 emission to a level that merely compensates upkeep by sinks, somehow, and the atmospheric concentration would remain constant) then surface temperature would slowly rise until the TOA balance is restored (and then rise some more as slow feedbacks kick in).

As a result, global warming will continue to affect life on Earth for hundreds of years, even if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and the increase in atmospheric levels halted.

That strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and to mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.

This is true because most mainstream scientists have concluded that the world must reduce total global emissions by at the very least 60 to 80 percent below existing levels to stabilize GHG atmospheric concentrations at minimally safe atmospheric GHG concentrations and the United States is a huge emitter both in historical terms and in comparison to current emissions levels of other high emitting nations.

Our only choice is to head back to 0 ˚C of warming, to halt all emissions and reduce atmospheric carbon to return the planet to a safe - climate zone.

But it transpired before long that it will take a lot of time to decrease the anthropogenic pressure by reducing CO2 and other hothouse emissions in order to stabilize the atmospheric level, and that the industrialized countries were not likely to cope with this task on their own.

The release of gas hydrates may still be stoppable through a suite of techniques including withdrawing atmospheric CO2 by rapidly building soil fertility on a global scale, reforestation to increase reflective cloud cover, and rapidly reducing CO2 emissions — in other words, a massive emergency campaign to cool the planet: Climate Code Red!

However, at some point in time, air capture conceivably could be a useful tool to mitigate emissions from distributed sources, and may even be deployed to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 below current concentrations.

The only thing that we can do at this point to reduce this projected rise, and the ancillary human and economic costs, is to greatly reduce carbon emissions which will involve a 30 year lag time for major atmospheric improvement.

United Nations negotiators struggle to get a global agreement for reducing the world's CO2 emissions, which would stabilise atmospheric CO2 level and keep the temperature rise below 2 °C.

In a recent post, I made the optimistic argument that, despite all the obstacles thrown up by rightwing denialism, the world is on track to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050, on a trajectory that would hold atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases below 450 ppm.

Requires the EPA Administrator to report to Congress by July 1, 2013, and every four years thereafter, on an analysis of: (1) key findings based on the latest scientific information relevant to global climate change; (2) capabilities to monitor and verify GHG reductions on a worldwide basis; and (3) the status of worldwide efforts for reducing GHG emission, preventing dangerous atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, preventing significant irreversible consequences of climate change, and reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

«At present, CSIRO and other measurements show that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are rising progressively faster each year — so the judgement of the atmosphere is that global efforts to reduce emissions have so far been spectacularly unsuccessful.

C: increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to present is anthropogenic (D / A) S: best guess for likely climate sensitivity (NUM) s: 2 - sigma range of S (NUM) a: ocean acidification will be a problem (D / A) L: expected sea level rise by 2100 in cm (all contributions)(NUM) B: climate change will be beneficial (D / A) R: CO2 emissions need to be reduced drastically by 2050 (D / A) T: technical advances will take care of any problems (D / A) r: the 20th century global temperature record is reliable (D / A) H: over the last 1000 years global temperature was hockey stick shaped (D / A) D: data has been intentionally distorted by scientist to support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (D / A) g: the CRU - mails are important for the science (D / A) G: the CRU - mails are important otherwise (D / A)