Sentences with phrase «see use of fossil fuels»

In our lifetime, we could see use of fossil fuels significantly reduced by replacing them with renewables.

So please learn to skip their comments, whose sole value is to provide a window into the thinking of those who do not want to see the use of fossil fuels criticized in any way.

We see this use of a fossil fuel as a temporary solution that in time will be upgraded with a new burner system, running on ethanol fuel derived from waste — ideally used coffee grinds.

Not exact matches

You could see rural communities emptied, and farms dependent on the unsustainable use of chemicals and fossil fuel.

«If that was a universal phenomenon on land, then you would see more of the carbon emitted from fossil fuel and land - use change staying in the atmosphere,» Houghton said, «but we are not really seeing that yet.»

Walter sees the benefits of using methane as an energy source as twofold: «Not only does it prevent a potent greenhouse gas from entering the atmosphere by converting it to weaker greenhouse gases — water vapor and carbon dioxide — but using it on - site would also reduce the demand for other fossil - fuel sources.»

restrict fossil fuel use so that we leave most of our coal, oil and gas in the ground (see chart below).

A 2017 study in the American Meteorology Society's Journal of Climate found that if countries meet the overall goal of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius via the «maximum technically feasible» cuts in fossil fuel use, the Arctic could see.84 degrees Celsius in warming by the middle of the century as sulfate decreases.

Retrograde Orbit wrote: «we probably won't live to see any negative consequences of our current use of fossil fuels — only our children and grandchildren will»

Especially because we probably won't live to see any negative consequences of our current use of fossil fuels — only our children and grandchildren will.

Both countries sit on vast deposits of this ancient fossil fuel and energy analysts see decades of continued use.

I yet have to see efficiency numbers of converting the energy in fossil fuel into the actual energy used in industries and homes.

However, I've never seen a single media article in any U.S. press outlet that covered these issues — the large - scale evidence for global warming (melting glaciers, warming poles, shrinking sea ice, ocean temperatures) to the local scale (more intense hurricanes, more intense precipitation, more frequent droughts and heat waves) while also discussing the real causes (fossil fuels and deforestation) and the real solutions (replacement of fossil fuels with renewables, limiting deforestation, and halting the use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil.)

More than a few times, Indian diplomats and officials have told me they bristle every time they see India lumped with China in discussions of obligations to eschew fossil fuels, given that India's per - capita energy use is less than a third that of China.

In this century, given continuing growth in the use of fossil fuels, many climate scientists see the concentration exceeding 450 parts per million or even 550 parts per million before stabilizing and — someday, perhaps — declining.

While climate science promotes the narrative of cooperation for stopping the use of fossil fuels, one just need to look to how much money is spent in national defence budgets to see that the world is still fiercely competing to control the remaining economically viable resources of fossil fuels.

I can see that the third world requires greater economic growth for a while, but that doesn't necessarily translate to greater growth of the world economy, and it certainly should not be done using fossil fuels and greater use of nitrate / phosphate fertilizers.

The UNFCCC framework sees every country working to abate its domestic emissions or maybe reducing emissions elsewhere to offset them but not dealing with exports of fossil fuels and how they are used elsewhere.

And, rather spectacularly, this is the 3D view of the yearly CO2 cycle, 2014 - 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syU1rRCp7E8 You can really see the localized emissions from areas with large fossil fuel use, as well as from large fires in other parts of the world.

I have yet to see how society will replace our present massive use of fossil carbon in time to minimize the impact of the decline in available low cost liquid fuels after Peak Oil.

Solar power has lots of potential as an alternative to fossil fuels, but some of the things we use it for make more sense than others: From solar - powered food carts, airplanes, and vending machines to solar - powered dog sweaters and beehives, read on to see which innovations are truly bright ideas — and which ones are a little dim.

They didn't want to be seen as advocate only of continuing to use fossil fuels.

But I can't see Russia agreeing to any outside limits on their use of energy or their efforts to maximize their rent for the fossil fuels that they provide to the world market.

The rise in renewable energy has also dampened the use of fossil fuels; 2017 saw low - carbon sources, including nuclear power, reach 50 percent of electricity generation for the first time.

So we shall soon see what the real climate sensitivity is, as the resultant CO2 levels of production from those who have NO INTENTION of slowing down their coal and oil consumption, continue to ramp up their use of fossil fuels.

Some countries, such as China and the United States of America, are in a win - win position of achieving economic growth through fossil fuel use with few consequences from the resulting climate change, while many other, mostly Island and African, countries suffer low economic growth and severe, negative climate change impacts (see Supplementary Table S4 online).

The fact is that if we can't greatly reduce fossil fuel use by the 2030 - 2040 range, by 2075 be will see a global average temperature rise of 3.5 to 4.0 degrees Celsius, which is also just about the time frame for world phosphate supplies to enter critical shortages that will eventually cut crop yields in half and require twice as much land and water to grow the same yield as previously.

Yes I saw that paper but quantification of fossil fuel CO2 by using C14 to determine the recently added CO2ff mole fraction seems to be the accepted method nevertheless going by this paper: -

The observed 14C decay is not only its sink rate, but is influenced by the exchange rate to a large extent, as can be seen in the build up of low 13C carbon in the atmosphere by fossil fuel use, which is 1 / 3rd of what is calculated.

- any increase of the decay rate from the biosphere over the uptake would lead to increased oxygen use, but we see the opposite: oxygen use is less than expected from fossil fuel burning, thus the biosphere is a net absorber of CO2.

Meanwhile, environmental groups see carbon capture as an industry figleaf to shield the EPA from pushback against its climate rules that will still allow the use of fossil fuels, albeit with lower emissions.

As for reliability I would like to see the empirical data about the relative dependability of systems that use more renewable energy vis a vi grids that rely on fossil fuels.

In the issue of finding resources to implement sustainable development, we see countries using the economic crisis as an excuse, while at the same time spending 100s of billions of dollars subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable industry in the world.

My own examination of the warming we see at present seems to indicate that the atmospheric CO2 rose first (beginning with the industrial revolution and the massive use of fossil fuels) and this has been followed by the rising global mean temperature.

Although solar power is seen as a key way to avoid the use of climate - changing fossil fuels, US solar companies are cutting investments and laying off workers.

At 980 ppmv and an ECS of 1.7 C we would see global warming of a bit more than 2C, as an asymptotic limit to be reached when all fossil fuels are completely used up a few hundred years down the road.

That said, one doesn't need climate science at all to see the negative externalities associated with the use of fossil fuels.

Here's a graph you've probably never seen: the correlation between use of fossil fuels and access to clean water.

On May 29, 2015, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, attended a Big Green - funded League of Conservation Voters event where he called for using RICO against climate skeptics and fossil fuel companies (see the YouTube here), then in a Washington Post op - ed, «The fossil - fuel industry's campaign to mislead the American people,» prompting a backlash asserting that the charge was false, and defending the right to dissent.

The unchecked use of fossil fuels will produce a climate not seen since the Triassic period about 200 million years ago, researchers warn in a new report.

I believe you yourself also used to talk of attacks from fossil fuel funded websites directed at yourself before you appreciated the nuances of the different sides of these issues, so perhaps you can see where Oreskes may be seeing things with a certain myopic viewpoint, which you have outgrown.

Not to sound too cynical but I think we'll see subsidised Coal to Oil production way ahead of policies that reduce the use of fossil fuels — insuring a supply of oil being seen as urgent and Climate Change as less urgent.

Earlier this year they extended their carbon dioxide data sets back to 1820, nearly the start of industrial fossil fuel use (see right).

«The switch to heavier fossil fuels has already caused much popular concern,» Warner wrote in an article published by the United Nation Environment Program, «primarily seen in some nations» fear of the effects of acid rain, and the general fear that excessive use of these fuels may so build up CO2 in the atmosphere that the Earth's temperature may increase, with some disastrous consequences.

I have seen no plans recommending incorporating damages from non-climate air pollution into the costs of using fossil fuels.

Until the European economic crisis has some sort of resolution, then we are unlikely to see any reduction of the use of fossil fuels, even in the USA.

But we see a firm decline of the 13C / 12C ratio in the atmosphere, in lockstep with human use of fossil fuels...

To see how and why they got beyond that, read here: In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment.

But I don't see how it will produce steep reductions in GHG emissions within 5 - 10 years, and a nearly complete phase - out of fossil fuel use within 10 - 20 years at most, which is what is needed to avoid catastrophic warming, if indeed it is not already too late to do so.

The mechanisms such interests use are many — influencing election outcomes by injecting huge sums of money into them (see the NYT editorial on the KOch Brothers and AB32, for example), installing fossil fuel employees in government bureaucracies (BP's ex-chief scientist is currently Head of Science at the DOE, one Steve Koonin, also of Caltech — welcome to the fossil fuel - academic complex), and distorting science to fit their agenda (witness the endless fraudulent claims about zero - emission combustion, despite the persistent absence of any stand - alone prototypes.)