Sentences with phrase «reduce global emissions enough»

Not exact matches

As part of its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming from exceeding 2 °C (3.6 °F), the Obama administration unveiled a plan in September to build wind farms off of nearly every U.S. coastline by 2050 — enough turbines to generate zero - carbon electricity for more than 23 million homes.

Mitigation — reducing emissions fast enough to achieve the temperature goal A transparency system and global stock - take — accounting for climate action Adaptation — strengthening ability of countries to deal with climate impacts Loss and damage — strengthening ability to recover from climate impacts Support — including finance, for nations to build clean, resilient futures As well as setting a long - term direction, countries will peak their emissions as soon as possible and continue to submit national climate action plans that detail their future objectives to address climate change.

The New York Times» Andy Revkin has been one of the few reporters writing on global warming to point out what every serious energy expert in the U.S. has long known: new regulations alone won't do nearly enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

While enough small measures could help reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (the goal of the climate bill that died early in his first term), climate scientists caution that won't be enough to avert the worst impacts of global temperature rise.

In most models that show the world reducing emissions enough to hit the 2 °C climate target, «solar energy emerges only as a minor mitigation option» — around 5 to 17 percent of global electricity supply in one representative study used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

We have long ago learned enough from climate science to know that global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced as quickly as possible and that climate change presents a clear threat.

«If Pond grew enough algae using the stack gas from industrial plants,» they said, «we could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 40 %, without impacting industrial output.»

2.2 Reducing CO2 emissions to 2005 levels is not enough to limit global warming to 2 - 2.4 °C, a level that would prevent the most severe consequences.

«We need to wake up to the idea that business as usual, even clever taxation schemes, will not act fast enough to reduce global emissions,» added Ove Hoegh - Guldberg, a contributing author to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which will be a talking point at COP21.

If the countries make good on their pledges, they will dramatically reduce the emissions scientists link to global warming, but not enough to hold temperatures to levels scientists say are needed to minimize risks of drought, flooding and other catastrophic effects.

These plans are an important piece of the puzzle to determine whether the world can reduce emissions enough to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F), thus preventing some of the worst impacts of climate change.

There are, however, signs that the global community has finally woken up and may reduce emissions fast enough to avoid the worst effects of the world we are headed towards.

The climate problem is VERY serious To reduce risks to a tolerably low level, we need to reduce emissions immediately and rapidly While this is not prohibitively expensive in a conventional economic sense, it is not free, and it is potentially very redistributive Global cooperation requires a solution that is «fair enough»

«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.

The research — as such studies so often do — assumes that not enough will be done to reduce global emissions.

The Paris Agreement calls for reducing global warming emissions enough to have a reasonable chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

The nations of the world agreed in Paris last December to try to reduce emissions and hold global warming to significantly less than 2 °C altogether, but there is evidence that national plans tabled so far may not be enough.

The general question surrounding the prevention of climate change is whether the earth can avoid a 2 °C situation — that is, whether we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions swiftly enough to keep global average surface temperatures from rising to 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels.

The game has a fantastic premise: You're in charge of global decision - making, and you have to figure out how to reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change, and prepare humanity to adapt to the warming we'll see irregardless.

Too bad, as the New York Times point out, that even though natural gas does have a far less impact on global warming than does coal, if we're going to reduce carbon emissions by 2050 enough to prevent the worst of climate change, the increase in natural gas usage won't cut it.