Sentences with phrase «talk about carbon emission»

This is because, when we talk about carbon emission scenarios and climate sensitivity, we are ultimately talking about future risk management.

Not exact matches

But talking about 2020 is crucial to climate scientists, who see quick emission cuts as important as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in four decades.

Inslee, Jerry Brown and Kate Brown talked about the efforts underway in each of their states to curb greenhouse gas emissions through initiatives such as renewable energy and grid modernization, electrification of transportation infrastructure, energy efficiency and policies to price or cap carbon emissions.

While the word «efficiency» appears in every other sentence that comes out of the mouths of Ferrari engineers, they're talking about efficiency of performance far more than fuel efficiency or emissions coming from this carbon - fiber - clad hypercar with its hybrid powertrain featuring a mighty 6.3 - liter V - 12 and seven - speed dual - clutch automatic.

First of all, why is there so much talk among policy analysts and policy makers — not simply among academics — about carbon ‑ pricing as the core of a meaningful strategy to reduce CO2 emissions?

The discussion talks explicitly about how diminishing terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks over time require reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuels / land use to achieve stabilization goals at various levels (e.g. 550 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere).

Factor in the «carbon light» CO2 from coal seam gas projects in the East (and other LNG expansion in the north and west) and you're talking about Australia's fossil fuel emission exports equating to TWO Saudi Arabias by 2020, not one as I've been saying to many disbelieving ears.

Rather than talking about a target concentration, they should be talking about a target cumulative carbon emission.

But Pearce argues that companies are often a little judicious with the facts behind these claims — Eurostar, for example, is fairly quiet when talking to the green market about the fact its low emissions are due to French nuclear power, and while Virgin's pendolino trains claim a pretty low carbon output, many of their other trains are still powered by dirty diesel (the UK is way behind Europe on electrification, which would cut emissions greatly).

Holding concentrations or temperature (more remotely) to a particular target therefore means limiting cumulative emissions of, say, carbon over time... a limited amount of time if we are talking about an iterative approach, and over a long period of time if we are talking about reducing the likelihood of some very nasty consequences well after we (but not our grandchildren — if we are lucky enough to have some) are gone.

But triggering an algae bloom is also a way to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and along with spewing particles into the stratosphere to block some of the sun's heat, it's one of the main techniques geoengineers talk about using if efforts to limit those emissions ultimately fail.

Did you know that many states are talking about putting a price on carbon emissions from fossil fuels?

Climate change has emerged as one of the most talked - about problems, yet global negotiations have fallen apart, and we are barely any closer to cutting carbon emissions than we were 10 years ago.

A question was asked about if and when China would consider peaking its carbon emissions (see previou spost «Peaking Duck: Beijing's growing appetite for climate action «-RRB- Mr. Su basically reiterated how unfair he felt it was to talk about developing country peak emissions at this point and that developed countries should shoot for achieving their pick as soon as possible.

You can not talk credibly about lowering emissions globally if, for example, you are slow to acknowledge climate change; if you undermine calls for an effective carbon price; and if you always descend into the «jobs versus environment» argument in the public debate.

Rud, when I talk to those of the Progressive Left who are most concerned about climate change, and who want the United States to become the leader in finding ways to reduce carbon emissions, they pretty much go silent when I inform them that the EPA has legal authority under the Clean Air Act and the 2009 Endangerment Finding to do much more in placing limits on carbon emissions than the agency is actually doing.

But then again I ask: why is it that we tackle it only in the way that current dogma talks about — cut carbon emissions right now and feel good about yourself?

Here I am trying to spoon feed to you the FACT that when scientists talk about «human carbon emissions» that it is NOT just CO2.

When scientists talk about «human carbon emissions» this is not just CO2.

«They'll never talk about the fact that our emissions go up by 77 million tonnes between 2010 and 2020 under their carbon tax.»

The Climate Change Authority fulfilled a hugely important role on Wednesday by smashing the comfortable agreement between Labor, Liberals and most commentators that we don't need to talk about how much to cut our climate - changing carbon emissions.

«Carbon models» may «indicate that the ocean will be a net sink for CO2» (as you write), but, inasmuch as the natural carbon cycle is so much greater than the human emissions, we are talking about a small difference between large numbers.

Obama went on to talk about the significant cuts in carbon emissions that will result from the fuel efficiency standards, clean energy investments, and energy efficiency initiatives he's implemented — and called for more action.

There's some good news as climate negotiators prepare for the COP23 climate talks, beginning in Germany on November 6th: Global carbon dioxide emissions from energy production and industry were flat for the third year in a row in 2016, at about 35.8 gigatons.

That's what two men named David thought, too, when they first met in 2008 to talk about a climate policy with very little support: a national tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

Gerke estimated that carbon emissions from the power sector — remember, we are only talking about electricity, not total energy consumption — must be down by around 0.3 percent.

California policymakers are drafting plans to cut the state's emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 and are also engaging in talks about carbon capping and trading.

So, for example, if you are trying to promote reducing your carbon footprint, you might link to an article that talks about the connection between carbon emissions and rising sea levels.

You talked about a report that showed that cellulosic ethanol could actually be worse than gasoline / diesel in terms of CO2 emissions, but that's only if you consider the effects of the land no linger being a carbon sink.

To reduce carbon emissions on a superlarge scale, we're talking about huge portions of the populace (billions of people) needing to agree.

SGER was designed around the concept of carbon intensity, which, when talking about the oil sands, equates to the amount of emissions that result from the production of a barrel of oil.

Christophe Jospe, Chief Strategist at the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State University, talks about reducing carbon dioxide emmissions.