Sentences with phrase «restrict emissions of carbon»

She has also spoken up frequently about the need to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide, both to limit climate disruption and protect sea life.

Updated below, 12:51 p.m. A comprehensive and sobering Associated Press story by Dina Cappiello provides a valuable update on how United States policies promoting exports of coal are undercutting domestic efforts to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide, the heat - trapping gas released when fossil fuels are burned.

1:16 p.m. Updated There's still thinking in many quarters that if the United States acts to restrict its emissions of carbon dioxide, the long - lived greenhouse gas at the heart of the climate challenge, the fast - growing developing countries of the world will voluntarily follow.

There's another advantage to this approach, which is that there is far stronger public support for advancing and disseminating low - carbon energy sources than there is for restricting emissions of carbon dioxide using a rising cost through a cap.

[25] The most recent edition of Cato's «Handbook for Policymakers» advises that Congress should «pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.»

Not exact matches

According to this Reuters article, «A Senate Democratic aide said Republicans in the House of Representatives were insisting on including policy language aimed at restricting abortions, as well as prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions.»

In a move widely interpreted as his effort to «out green» Gore, Bush pledged to include carbon dioxide, the main heat - trapping emission from human activities, in a basket of restricted power plant pollutants.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has bluntly rejected challenges to the Obama Administration's rules restricting carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

I'm in Beijing to participate in a week of meetings related to the unfolding international science effort called Future Earth, so I won't be able to weigh in in a timely fashion on President Obama's planned Monday release of regulations restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing American power plants.

Environmental groups have sought to force the federal government to restrict carbon dioxide emissions using the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act (because of threats to polar bears from global warming) and other federal laws, and now they are poised to add the Clean Water Act to the list.

Calculating carbon footprints First of all, carbon footprints can be calculated in one of two ways: using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method (more accurate and specific), or it can be restricted to the immediately attributable emissions from energy use of fossil fuels (more general).

If you reduce 80 % of your carbon emissions you will be severely restricted in your liberties.

It was a reminder of the skepticism that conservative and business groups have expressed over whether other nations — particularly China, which is responsible for about a quarter of the world's carbon emissions and is burning increasing amounts of coal — will follow Obama's lead in restricting such emissions.

In order to join the international community and make this announcement something civil society can embrace, KfW must follow the steps of other major institutions — like the European Investment Bank and the U.S. Export - Import Bank — and announce an Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) that restricts the carbon intensity of power plant investments.

While carbon pricing can theoretically address the externalities associated with climatic harm from emissions, it can not automatically deal with the externalities holding back grid development, which include the monopoly status of many of the firms involved, issues concerning economies of scale, the fact that the absence of transmission capacity restricts the emergence of renewable generation capacity (and vice versa).

As a result of political horse trading at UN negotiations on climate change, countries like Russia and the Ukraine were allowed to create carbon credits from activities like curbing coal waste fires, or restricting gas emissions from petroleum production.

Thus, despite many years of attempts to negotiate agreements, as well as high profile campaigns to restrict carbon emissions, the reality is that today carbon dioxide emissions have never been greater:

Saudi Arabia, the world's leading oil producer, has indicated that it would not have a problem with a universal charge on carbon dioxide emissions, implying it would not restrict oil production to capture the revenues of a charge on carbon.

MEPs in Strasbourg have vote against proposals to restrict supply of carbon credits in EU's emissions trading scheme

The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle — so remote that it is not under any threat — should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions.

How governments choose to ration, restrict, or penalize the carbon - based fuels that supply 85 % of U.S. and global energy — or, in Somerville's words, how governments compel «large and rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions» — is a subordinate issue.

As a result, the Obama Administration would do better to come to grips with this fact and stop deferring to the IPCC findings when trying to justify increasingly burdensome federal regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, with the combined effects of manipulating markets and restricting energy choices.

The IATA does say that it could support carefully designed carbon trading policies, though it prefers voluntary agreements to regulation, and it claims that such schemes should be restricted to carbon dioxide only, and that other emissions should be tackled by «other means» (no mention is made of what these means might be).

The Kyoto Protocol restricts emissions of six greenhouse gases: natural (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) and industrial (perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride).

One of the arguments against the proposal was that restricting cars to 30kph would keep them changing between first and second gears, making them less fuel - efficient and increasing carbon emissions.