Sentences with phrase «reducing human greenhouse gas emissions»

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.

Some experts claim the rise in temperature during the past century was «unprecedented» and proof that immediate action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions must begin.

In either scenario we need to take serious action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid dangerous and potentially catastrophic climate change.

In any realistic scenario, we need to take serious and immediate action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions.

First, we would rapidly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions to near zero.

Not exact matches

The Trudeau government believes accepting the scientific evidence for human - caused climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are critical to gaining social licence for pipelines, Carr says.

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.»

Our research focuses on biologically - based mechanisms to reduce pest issues, soil erosion, fossil fuel use, and greenhouse gas emissions; increase nutrient and water use efficiencies; improve pollinator activity and food security; and apply a systems approach to soil, crop, animal, human and planetary health.

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).

Pruitt is currently participating in a lawsuit against the EPA's regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and denies the overwhelming scientific consensus on human - caused climate change.

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.

Hence, the projected regional warming and consequent increase in wildfire activity in the western United States is likely to magnify the threats to human communities and ecosystems, and substantially increase the management challenges in restoring forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

Now it is clear human drive the climate change and human can slow down it by action to reduce greenhouse gas emission.

This means that an already difficult challenge for resident populations and those who care about them (for whatever reason, including moral, humanitarian or national security) will be likely be made more challenging by human climate change if the greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced significantly.

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.

A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another LIA; in fact, the maximum 0.3 °C cooling would barely make a dent in the human - caused global warming over the next century, likely between 1 and 5 °C, depending on how much we manage to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

It is not the first such optimistic study: researchers have lately argued that the 2 °C target set in Paris is possible, if humans start reducing greenhouse gas emissions towards zero, and do so within 40 years.

Hence, the projected regional warming and consequent increase in wildfire activity in the western United States is likely to magnify the threats to human communities and ecosystems, and substantially increase the management challenges in restoring forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

BMJ.com (nee the British Medical Journal) published a study today showing that a bike share program in Barcelona, Spain saves human lives while reducing 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.»

Recognizing that cities play a leading role in producing and potentially reducing greenhouse - gas emissions, San Francisco is actively pursuing citywide strategies to address human - made climate change.

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 link between adverse impacts such as more wildfires, ecosystem changes, extreme weather events etc. and their mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions hinges on detecting unusual events for at least the past century and then actually attributing them to human caused warming.

«noting that greenhouse gas emissions «must be substantially reduced» to minimize negative impacts on the global economy, natural resources, and human health.»

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.

Our research focuses on biologically - based mechanisms to reduce pest issues, soil erosion, fossil fuel use, and greenhouse gas emissions; increase nutrient and water use efficiencies; improve pollinator activity and food security; and apply a systems approach to soil, crop, animal, human and planetary health.

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.

In the US last year, the EPA introduced the Clean Power Plan, a historic step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, stopping climate change, and protecting human health.

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.

Many other US politicians have also recently said they will not support legislation to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions because they are not convinced that climate change happening or is human - caused.

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.