Sentences with phrase «reduce global emissions so»

The 2 °C target was reaffirmed in the 2009 «Copenhagen Accord» emerging from the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention [11], with specific language «We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, as documented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius...».

The 2 °C target was reaffirmed in the 2009 «Copenhagen Accord» emerging from the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention [11], with specific language «We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, as documented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius...».

Not exact matches

WHEREAS, in furtherance of the united effort to address the effects of climate change, in 2010 the 16th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCC met in Cancun, Mexico and recognized that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions were required, with a goal of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels;

«With land use sector emissions accounting for 25 percent of all global warming pollution, it is essential that countries with the potential to reduce emissions in this sector — like the U.S., EU, and Mexico — clearly commit to doing so in their INDCs,» said Doug Boucher, director of UCS's Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative.

So reducing emissions of it would have a nearly immediate impact on global temperatures.

However, cutting emissions so that global temperatures increase by no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit) could reduce those impacts by half, with about a quarter of the state's natural vegetation affected.

By producing more food on less land, it may be possible to reduce these emissions, but this so - called intensification often involves increasing fertilizer use, which can lead to large emissions of nitrogen - containing gases that also contribute to global warming.

[1] CO2 absorbs IR, is the main GHG, human emissions are increasing its concentration in the atmosphere, raising temperatures globally; the second GHG, water vapor, exists in equilibrium with water / ice, would precipitate out if not for the CO2, so acts as a feedback; since the oceans cover so much of the planet, water is a large positive feedback; melting snow and ice as the atmosphere warms decreases albedo, another positive feedback, biased toward the poles, which gives larger polar warming than the global average; decreasing the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is reducing the driving forces for the jetstream; the jetstream's meanders are increasing in amplitude and slowing, just like the lower Missippi River where its driving gradient decreases; the larger slower meanders increase the amplitude and duration of blocking highs, increasing drought and extreme temperatures — and 30,000 + Europeans and 5,000 plus Russians die, and the US corn crop, Russian wheat crop, and Aussie wildland fire protection fails — or extreme rainfall floods the US, France, Pakistan, Thailand (driving up prices for disk drives — hows that for unexpected adverse impacts from AGW?)

Bill says the global financial system is so insane that a market - based solution to reduce carbon emissions could spin out of control and freeze / starve us to death.

So this leaves the question of why more isn't done to reduce emissions in a global sense?

So, addressing this problem may be a key pathway to reducing global emissions and fighting climate change.

I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

Victor (243): I'm simply questioning the validity of the hypothesis offered by so many climate scientists that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are a significant factor in global warming, to the extent that they must be drastically reduced.

So, even conservative estimates of committed warming indicate that we have to urgently reduce radiative forcing, in other words peak global GHG emissions as soon as possible and then reduce them as quickly as possible by reducing our use of fossil fuels drastically, if we want to have a chance at keeping warming under 2C.

Thus, the concept of an emissions budget is very useful to get the message across that the amount of CO2 that we can still emit in total (not per year) is limited if we want to stabilise global temperature at a given level, so any delay in reducing emissions can be detrimental — especially if we cross tipping points in the climate system, e.g trigger the complete loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

So for laypersons a true negative (we do nothing to reduce GH emissions, and GW is not happening) would be much worse economically & re other environmental problems, than a false positive (we abate global warming, when it is not happening).

So it extremely behooves us to reduce our GHG emissions very drastically very quickly... just in case the solar output starts increasing, adding heat on top of our anthropogenic global warming.

It is another sign that, in the absence of leadership by the Bush Administration and the federal government in Canada, U.S. States and Canadian provinces are seeking global partnerships to reduce emissions — or, at the very least, coordinate efforts to do so.

«I know there are some out there, probably a couple hundred people, who actually believe that the world is coming to an end and man - made global warming is going to cause it, so I just want to give them the assurance that if they're right and we are wrong, [proposed climate policies are] not going to reduce but it will increase CO2 emissions,» he said.

2010: Governments agree emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are limited to below 2 degrees C.

By failing to do so, the court said, the DEP was falling short of complying with the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act, which says that by 2050, greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels.

b) so, it can do nothing to displace fossil fuel use — i.e. nothing to reduce global GHG emissions.

The US obligation to reduce its emissions is terminated only when it is below levels required by fair global allocations that will prevent dangerous climate change although even in this case an argument can be made that any nation that could reduce emissions further should do so to avoid catastrophic harm to others.

So I'll ask you again: what aspect of the science «informed» an agreement that exempted the developing countries, responsible for over 65 percent of global emissions, from any obligation to reduce those emissions?

The goal of global warming alarmists is to reduce CO2 emissions so that over decades of time these 12 dots might be decreased to perhaps 8 or 9 dots.

So even if the IPCC were right about climate sensitivity, which Lewis» submission makes clear it is not, and even if the programme were to reduce UK carbon emissions, which it will not, the UK would still be engaging at vast expense in an exercise which will have no effect on its alleged motivation, global warming.

This is so because the world will need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions from current levels by 80 % or greater by the middle of this century to prevent catastrophic climate change as greenhouse gas emissions increase world wide increase at 2 % per year under current trends.

«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.

The damage to the world from an almost 30 year US delay in taking serious steps to reduce the threat of climate change including the enormity of global ghg emissions reductions that are now necessary compared to the reductions that would have been necessary if the United States and the world acted more forcefully a decade ago or so earlier.

Dr Perkins - Kirkpatrick added that «we need to work as a global community to reduce our emissions as quickly and efficiently as possible, so that regional changes and their impacts are minimised.»

But since regional markets have reduced emissions most effectively so far, it says, a global mechanism would be the most effective means to achieve this goal in the future.

And so, since all nations have an ethical duty to reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions, nations have a duty to reduce the harm that they are causing to others even if there is no adequate global response to climate change.

And so, nations have an ethical duty to reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions without regard to what other nations do.

And so, if some nations are not willing to reduce their emissions to levels consistent with what justice requires of them, no nation, including the United States, can refuse to reduce its emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions levels on the basis that others won't act.

«So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected.

And so, Republican presidential candidate Romney may not justify a refusal of the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions on the basis that other nations refuse to do so.

This is so because of the huge differences in per capita emissions between developed and developing countries and the need to reduce total global emissions by 60 to 80 % from global total emissions to prevent dangerous climate change.

While the bill and likely substitute amendment offered by Senator Boxer would initiate the first step in placing a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions so the United States can do its part to reduce the impacts of global warming,...

As we shall see, these countries, among others, have continued to negotiate as if: (a) they only need to commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emission if other nations commit to do so, in other words that their national interests limit their international obligations, (b) any emissions reductions commitments can be determined and calculated without regard to what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, (c) large emitting nations have no duty to compensate people or nations that are vulnerable to climate change for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

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

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 result is that we have a program that is reducing sulphur emissions from power plants which do NOT cause a significant problem with acid rain, and by doing so, it is EXACERBATING what may be a REAL problem with global warming.

So far, so good, our synthetic net global emissions are similar to Prof. Salby's in that there is an average value of about 1.5 ppm per year, but superimposed on top of that there is an oscillatory behaviour that sometimes reduces net global emissions almost (but not quite) to zero, and sometimes means that net global emissions are much higher than averagSo far, so good, our synthetic net global emissions are similar to Prof. Salby's in that there is an average value of about 1.5 ppm per year, but superimposed on top of that there is an oscillatory behaviour that sometimes reduces net global emissions almost (but not quite) to zero, and sometimes means that net global emissions are much higher than averagso good, our synthetic net global emissions are similar to Prof. Salby's in that there is an average value of about 1.5 ppm per year, but superimposed on top of that there is an oscillatory behaviour that sometimes reduces net global emissions almost (but not quite) to zero, and sometimes means that net global emissions are much higher than average.

So the question comes back to the sort of actions the world can take to reduce our emissions at the same time as making global economics more resilient.

And we'd be on a fast trajectory to ramp up the trajectory of reducing global GHG emissions — and do so in a no cost way!!!

And rapidly reducing emissions thereafter so that global emissions in 2050 are at least 49 % to 72 % below the level of emissions in 2010.

So, pupils are probably quite familiar with the main issues at stake in the global warming debate such as where the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from, what might be done to reduce emissions, and that the climatic consequences for Earth could be devastating.

Whether Global Warming is real or not, it is clear that current Western attempts to reduce CO2 emissions have achieved nothing but 1) Export their industry and jobs to India and China, 2) Increase the CO2 emissions there above what they were in Europe, Australia and North America, so that total emissions increase, and 3) Massively increase domestic electricity prices while enriching Chinese Solar Panel and Wind Turbine manufacturers.

The fossil fuel extraction industries, faced with the knowledge that the very product they sell is the main culprit behind the destabilization of our global climate system, have a moral obligation to find ways to drastically reduce carbon emissions to Earth's atmosphere so as not to leave behind a climate system inhospitable to human life.

So, AGW or «any global warming» as it should be known is therefore down to water vapour and governments could save millions of $ expenditure by reducing water vapour emissions instead of CO2 emissions by merely paying lip service (10 $) to it (water vapour that is).