Here is how their propsal works: Having
reduced your emmissions by turning off your airconditioner you go to a new website.
Should we begin a policy to
reduce emmissions if by time the effects are felt in the environment the natural causes have reversed the warming trend?
Not exact matches
State officials argued that nuclear plant closures would prompt an increase in fossil fuel generation, in conflict with Cuomo's goal to
reduce carbon
emmissions 40 percent by 2030.
I have been posing this scenario to any who will listen: We can also
reduce our CO2
emmissions by
reducing consumption.
What I am saying is that real, useful, competent action on
reducing greenhouse gas
emmissions will require an intellectual and emotional movement of great proportions, and my observation is that such movements do not arrise without leaders and heroes.
If co2
emmissions not
reduced by 80 % NOW there is very little hope of bypassing the tipping point.
Yes, we should be doing things like finding ways to
reduce lung damage from interior fires (I've heard this one specifically given as an argument to NOT put money in CO2
emmission reductions since millions of children are dying now exposed to interior smoke fires in developing countries, and the money would be more effective in providing gas cookers).
Duke has helped create bills attacking environmental regulations and attempts to
reduce greenhouse
emmissions.
It seems to me that even if we do this during hurricane season
emmissions will be greatly
reduced.
The experiments to
reduce carbon
emmissions are too young to know if they work at all.
Christophe Jospe, Chief Strategist at the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State University, talks about
reducing carbon dioxide
emmissions.