Sentences with phrase «reducing ghg emissions»

In my blog I suggested that EU fuel efficiency regulation for new cars should demonstrate higher impacts on reducing GHG emissions.

Wider policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions such as carbon pricing mechanisms may also support RE.

Many have argued that responsibility for reducing ghg emissions should not only be based upon production of ghgs within a nation, the current presumption of international negotiations, but on products consumed in a nation but produced in another nations in processes which emitted ghgs.

The Responsible Appliance Disposal Program is reducing GHG emissions from refrigerant - containing home appliances that have reached their end of life by ensuring recovery and recycling of refrigerants and foam.

For instance, if responsibility for reducing GHG emissions is allocated in part on historic emissions, the largest portion of historic responsibility has to be attributed to the United States with 25.6 % of historic emissions, followed by the 15 European Union Countries at 15.9 %, OPEC countries at 7.4 %, Russia at 7.3 %, China at 6.4 %, Brazil at 5.2 %, the 76 countries of AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) and the LDC (Least Developed Countries) at 4.1 %, Japan at 2.8 %, and finally India with next to no responsibility at 0.3 %.

Taiyong Zhong, vice Mayor of Guiyang Municipal People's Government, People's Republic of China presented the city's ambitions to turn climate change into an opportunity for the green economy with strong targets such as increasing the recycling rate of wastewater to 95 % amd reducing GHG emissions by 45 % by 2030.

To help policymakers and other decision makers develop effective strategies for managing and reducing GHG emissions through a better understanding of the emissions impacts of policies and actions

These omissions included: (a) the lack of recognition that dependence on natural gas as a bridge fuel for reducing the US carbon footprint raises several ethical questions, a matter reviewed here in detail, (b) acknowledgment of the US special responsibility for climate change for its unwillingness to take action on climate change for over 20 years since it ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, see, The World Waits In Vain For US Ethical Climate Change Leadership As the World Warms, and, (c) failing to communicate the extreme urgency of quickly and significantly reducing ghg emissions in the next few years to give the world any hope of avoiding dangerous climate change, see, On the Extraordinary Urgency of Nations Responding To Climate Change on the Basis of Equity.

Some environmental NGOs usually fail to spot the ethical problems with arguments made against climate change policies based upon the cost or reducing ghg emissions to the emitters.

EPA and the states could use the provision to establish an economy - wide, market - based approach for reducing GHG emissions.

Finally, Eneco commits to reducing GHG emissions per GWh of electricity used for employee operations 50 % by 2020 from a 2012 base year.

* Eneco's full emissions reduction target is as follows: Eneco commits to reducing GHG emissions per GWh from electricity consumed by its customers 25 % by 2020 from a 2012 base year.

Eneco also commits to reducing GHG emissions per household from the natural gas and district heating consumed by its private customers 16 % by 2020 from a 2012 base year.

Without doubt every delay in reducing ghg emissions makes the problem more difficult and more expensive to solve.

Why the commitment on reducing ghg emissions by the Obama administration, despite it being a welcome change from prior US responses to climate change, is still woefully inadequate.

Reducing GHG emissions is clearly aimed at stabilizing their concentrations in the atmosphere.

Do you agree that no nation has a right to kill other people or destroy the ecological systems on which life depends simply because reducing ghg emissions will impose costs on the high - emitting nation?

If you argue that high costs to a nation of reducing its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global ghg emissions justify non-action, how have you considered the increased harms and risks to poor vulnerable people and nations that will continue to grow as atmospheric ghg concentrations continue to rise?

This question is designed to bring attention to the fact that because all nations that ratified the UNFCCC agreed to not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not reducing their ghg emissions, they have an ethical duty to keep their promises.

However, if climate change is understood as essentially a moral and ethical problem it will eventually transform how climate change is debated because the successful framing by the opponents of climate change policies that have limited recent debate to these three arguments, namely cost, scientific uncertainty, and unfairness of reducing ghg emissions until China does so can be shown to be deeply ethically and morally problematic.

On November 11, 2014, the Obama Administration announced a new US commitment on reducing its ghg emissions in a deal with China.

This question is designed to expose the fact that because delays in ghg emissions based on costs to the polluter makes the enormous threat of climate change much more difficult to solve and more likely that serious harms and damages will be experienced, therefore arguments for delays in reducing ghg emissions based upon cost raise moral and ethical issues because the delays are making the problem much worse, more difficult to solve, and great harms inevitable.

and that the developed nations have promised to take the lead in reducing ghg emissions.

Phasing down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol is the most cost - effective, short - term and fast - action strategy for reducing GHG emissions.

In turn, the U.S. is leading the world in reducing GHG emissions.

The LCFS is an ineffective tool for reducing GHG emissions.

The Warsaw outcome mentions for the first time «nationally determined contributions» to reducing GHG emissions, reflecting a step away from a global budget approach (whereby we say that the supposedly «safe» temperature increase of 2 degrees could only be achieved if we emit X amount of carbon, and the game is to then decide who can emit what share) to a «pledge and review» approach (Whereby countries «pledge» to do what is «nationally appropriate» given their circumstances).

«We hope to make a much larger contribution to reducing GHG emissions once our clean fuel, cellulosic ethanol technology becomes commercial at a cost competitive with gasoline» said Gorham.

This will provide 80 % -90 % of the solution to reducing the GHG emissions intensity of electricity; this will reduce global GHG emissions by 50 % as electricity's share of total global energy increases.

As far back as 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) committed to the principle of «common but differentiated responsibilities», in which countries have a common responsibility in reducing GHG emissions, but historic emissions and differences in current development levels mean that countries have different levels of emissions reduction obligations9.

To address GHG emissions, a policy that promotes renewable energy production is quite distantly connected to the goal of reducing GHG emissions — this is a key reason why most economists (myself and I assume you included) see it as a distant second best policy, only good when emission taxes are not available for political or other reasons.

It's a win - win if producers can achieve all of those things while reducing GHG emissions and increasing revenues.»

In order to reverse forest loss, Colombia is implementing a series of initiatives to reduce deforestation and stop the huge deforestation hotspots in the country as part of good governance of forest resources and to simultaneously contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing GHG emissions related to this activity.

Every serious study and paper on geoengineering has stressed that reducing GHG emissions is the fundamental solution and top priority for dealing with climate change.

Renewablkes can not supply much of the worlds energy so they can not make much contribution to reducing GHG emissions.

In short the costs of NOT reducing GHG emissions in the US, let alone the rest of the world, will exceed the costs of control many times over.

Reducing GHG emissions will have many benefits, but when it comes to hurricanes, such action can only hope to slow or halt the rise in intensity.

The positions of Christy and Pielke Sr., and other scientists with weak positions on reducing GHG emissions, have been most detrimental in advancing the need to act strongly to reduce GHG emissions from ground and air travel and power plants.

Reducing GHG emissions as much as possible is the right thing to do.

And again, my position is that (1) nuclear power is not needed, since we can get all the electricity we need, and more, from renewables; (2) nuclear can not possibly be expanded enough, quickly enough to have any significant impact on reducing GHG emissions in the time frame that's needed, while renewables can be (and already are); and (3) resources invested in expanding nuclear power would be far more effectively invested in renewables and / or efficiency, and the opportunity costs of nuclear therefore mean that putting resources into nuclear power hinders rather than helps the effort to quickly reduce CO2 emissions from generating electricity.

The paper appears to conclude that if we wait 20 years to begin reducing GHG emissions, assuming a modest amount of mitigation in the short term, we will have to reduce emissions at a 3 to 7 times greater rate than if we start now in order to keep warming to a 3 degree C increase around 2100.

Whatever else may be said about nuclear, it is not a «short term» solution for reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation.

My primary objection to nuclear power is precisely that, completely apart from its very real dangers and toxic pollution, it is not a short - term solution if «short - term solution» is defined as one that can make a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions in the time frame within which such reductions are needed.

We emphasize the importance of expeditious discussions in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for limiting or reducing GHG emissions in the international aviation and maritime sectors, bearing in mind the distinct processes under the UNFCCC toward an agreed outcome for the post-2012 period.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

This study describes the role of transit agencies in reducing GHG emissions and catalogs the current practices of a sample of agencies.

It showed that the health benefits to the US of reducing GHG emissions are significant, and in monetary terms would exceed the costs of reducing GHGs.

It comes following the decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw the USA from the 2015 Paris Accord on climate change, which commits its signatories to actively work on reducing their GHG emissions.

The report contributes to the growing pool of evidence that reducing GHG emissions can take place while sustaining and contributing to sectorial and economic growth.

Surprisingly, this is the area in which the greatest impact can be made in reducing GHG emissions.