Sentences with phrase «reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas»

Not exact matches

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.»

Granted, there are more benefits to reducing particulate and greenhouse gas emissions than just climate change, i.e. PM 2.5 which can be stuck in the human lung and cause cancer / respiratory issues, SO2 which contributes to acid rain (we've already eliminated the majority of this problem), as well as soot (nobody wants the surrounding area covered in ash).

Politics of deferred gratification Under one of the additional scenarios, known as RCP 4.5, humans take longer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but eventually do so, and under the other, known as RCP 8.5, carbon dioxide concentrations continue to rise through 2100.

Within minutes, the two men had also agreed that it was important to prepare for climate change, whether human - induced or natural, and that an expansion of nuclear reactors to generate power could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

For example, the report summarizes recent research underpinning the scientific rationale for large and rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions, in order to reduce the likelihood of dangerous human - induced climate change.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

Called «Many Heavens, One Earth,» the meeting is intended to generate commitments for actions by religious organizations, congregants and countries that could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or otherwise limit the human impact on the environment.

At the same time it will help mitigate and solve catastrophic consequences of human - induced global warming and climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

Actions to reduce emissions of carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases that accelerate climate change will protect human health in both the short...

In June 2016, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific associations sent a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers that reaffirmed the reality of human - caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions «must be substantially reduced» to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.

that «Human combustion of fossil fuels is significantly causing that climate change» is also true, then many, perhaps most, people will accept that there is a need to «reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build out clean energy» even if it will «cost consumers money, decrease energy security and destroy jobs».

If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century.

Just this May the United States Academy of Sciences concluded once again that humans are causing climate change and this will lead to harsh impacts for the human race and ecological systems unless steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

«Meat production represents 18 percent of global human - induced GHG emissions... While the world is looking for sharp reductions in greenhouse gases responsible for climate change, growing global meat production is going to severely compromise future efforts... a study from the University of Chicago showed that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by 20 percent it would be as if they switched from a standard sedan to the ultra-efficient Prius.»

Monsieur Joggles, methane emission from the arctic can not be stopped, but they can be reduced by stopping, or failing that greatly limiting, human emissions of greenhouse gases.

In a keynote address to the conference, Mr Jarraud reiterated the urgency of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, and sounded a warning note about using geoengineering to try to limit climate change.

The report notes that this decade is critical in reducing human greenhouse gas emissions, that we have all the technology necessary to do so, and examines the policies of various countries toward that end.

In a consensus letter to U.S. policymakers, a partnership of 31 leading nonpartisan scientific societies today reaffirmed the reality of human - caused climate change, noting that greenhouse gas emissions «must be substantially reduced» to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.

«Efforts to reduce human - induced warming are even more urgent in order to minimise this type of feedback of natural greenhouse gas emissions»

«This means that efforts to reduce human - induced warming are even more urgent in order to minimise this type of feedback of natural greenhouse gas emissions,» says a co-author of the study, David Bastviken, senior lecturer in environmental change at Linköping University.

On Climate Action: The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities.

Given the importance of the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming in peoples» decisions whether to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the public lack of awareness of the consensus, we need to make people aware of these results.

In particular, the EU should take urgent steps to reduce the consumption of commodities, such as palm oil biodiesel, that are linked to rainforest destruction and accompanying greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and human rights violations.»

As future climate change is dependent upon emissions of greenhouse gases, efforts to mitigate those emissions can reduce the likelihood that human or natural systems will experience a limit to adaptation.

While environmental activists and some politicians claim «the debate is over» and call for immediate action to reduce man - made greenhouse gas emissions, others say the science points to only a very small human impact — too small to warrant concern — and the costs of trying to prevent global warming far exceed the benefits.

Given that for over 20 years since international climate change negotiations began, the United States has refused to commit to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions based upon the justification that there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant action, if it turns out that human - induced climate change actually greatly harms the health and ecological systems on which life depends of others, should the United States be responsible for the harms that could have been avoided if preventative action had been taken earlier?

Given the growing urgency of the need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and the hard - to - imagine magnitude of global emissions reductions needed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at reasonably safe levels, the failure of many engaged in climate change controversies to see the practical significance of understanding climate change as an ethical problem must be seen as a huge human tragedy.

Awareness of the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming is a key factor in peoples» decisions whether or not to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

Countries included in Annex B of the Protocol (most Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries and countries with economies in transition) agreed to reduce their human - induced heat - trapping gas (greenhouse gas) emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) by at least 5 % below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

«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 US apparent unwillingness to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions beyond what it is already on track to achieve is of considerable controversy in the Qatar negotiations this week because of the growing scientific concern about the potential inevitability of catastrophic warming caused by human activities.

On the vital question of how to approach climate change, the most influential economist is William Nordhaus whose explicit position is that we should decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only if cost - benefit analysis or an optimisation model concludes that the net benefits to humans are positive, where the relevant effects are essentially impacts on economic output (Nordhaus and Yang, 1996).

Beyond the scientific questions — it becomes a question of how to pragmatically reduce human pressures on Earth systems — including inter alia — greenhouse gas emissions.

On the basis of well - established evidence from the past 20 years, there is now wide consensus among scientific organizations and approximately 97 % of climatologists that human - generated greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of climate change.1 — 4 Although the effects of climate change are already being felt across the world, the magnitude of the effects of future changes depends on our ability to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement adaptation strategies within the ensuing decades.5 Thus, it remains possible to protect children, families, and communities from the worst potential effects of climate change.

In March 2007, Hansen told the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, «The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate, and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to human - made greenhouse gas emissions.»

As recently as June 2011, Romney was telling voters in New Hampshire that «the world's getting warmer,» that «I believe that humans contribute,» and that «I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases.»

Of course, if humans started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 % a year right now, the end of the century challenge would be to take 150 billion tonnes from the atmosphere, and most of this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System DynamicOf course, if humans started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 % a year right now, the end of the century challenge would be to take 150 billion tonnes from the atmosphere, and most of this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System Dynamicof the century challenge would be to take 150 billion tonnes from the atmosphere, and most of this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System Dynamicof this could be achieved simply by better forest and agricultural management, according to a new study in the journal Earth System Dynamics.

Attempts to significantly influence climate impacts based on just controlling CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases emissions is an inadequate and incomplete policy for this purpose.The goal should be to seek politically and technologically practical ways (with minimal cost and maximum benefit) to reduce the vulnerability of the environment and society to the entire spectrum of human - caused and natural risks including those from climate, but also from all other environmental and social threats.

Instead, carbon removal aims to reduce historical human influence on the climate system by decreasing the amount of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — essentially reversing the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

We support educating the public and policymakers in government and industry about the harmful human health effects of global climate change, and about the immediate and long - term health benefits associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., heat - trapping pollution) and taking other preventive and protective measures that contribute to sustainability.

We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80 % by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.

Most books about climate change focus on some aspect of the science of the issue; some deal with issues of mitigation — that is, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases — or adaptation — that is, actions to adjust human behavior or infrastructure to the consequences of the warming that Earth will experience over the coming decades.

The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger tipping points (critical thresholds) remain uncertain, but the likelihood of crossing tipping points in the earth system or interlinked human and natural systems decreases with reduced greenhouse gas emissions (medium confidence).

A new study looks at the effects of eating less meat and finds, in a fascinating intersection of issues, that reducing meat consumption would improve human health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease healthcare costs significantly.

While the SE4All objectives do not explicitly address climate change, it is clear that sustainable energy is a prerequisite for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: 80 % of human carbon dioxide emissions come from the global energy system, including transportation, buildings, industry, and electricity, heat, and fuel production.

A panel of the world's leading climate scientists strongly asserted Friday that «it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause» of global warming since 1950 and warned of more rapid ice melt and rising seas if governments do not aggressively act to reduce the pace of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mitigation focuses on reducing sources of climate change, such as greenhouse gas and other human - causing emissions, through clean energy, carbon sink, and sequestration projects.

The only way to do that is to reduce the output of so - called greenhouse gasses, caused primarily by carbon dioxide emissions from industry, automobiles and other human activities, Horton said.