Sentences with phrase «talking about fossil fuels»

«When you're talking about fossil fuels, you have to factor in the land used for exploration, extraction, processing, and then transportation,» he said.

We can not talk about climate finance without talking about fossil fuel investment.

Not exact matches

They talk about free markets while at the same time subsidizing fossil fuels.

When people talk about this, they tend to talk as if we would suddenly run out of fossil fuels.

Moderator's Remarks from Al Appleton, former Commissioner of the NYC Department of Environmental Protection and Senior Fellow at the Cooper Union: When we talk about addressing global warming, we're talking about disentangling 21st century society from fossil fuel.

This relates to the whole area of development for people talking about biofuels, which is this idea of trying to develop replacements for the conventional sorts of fossil fuels that we have to at least — if we are going to be burning some sort of hydrocarbons of some kind — to try to get them [so] that they are being derived from a different source, and potentially or ideally, ones that would actually burn without delivering as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere too; that's great if you can get that.

There is a great deal of talk today about archaeological sites being finite, rather like fossil fuels, but most research involves extensive excavation.

So whenever one talks about aerosols, one needs to put a caveat noting that greenhouse gases also come from fossil fuels and are the dominant effect.

That's all fine, but this also means that the climate talks, which head to Durban, South Africa, next year, are not the place to watch for the breakthroughs — social, financial or technological — that will be required if the world is serious about providing some 9 billion people mid-century with the suite of services that come with abundant energy (mobility, communication, illumination, desalinated water and more) while also greatly cutting emissions from burning fossil fuels, which still dominate the global energy mix.

The general point made when talking about people like Singer and so on is that they recieved major funding from fossil fuel interests — but isn't that also true of the New York Times, and doesn't it raise similar questions about the quality of their coverage?

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).

I am talking about greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.

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.

It comes from grass that removed the CO2 from the atmosphere for growth (I am not talking about CO2 from the use of fertilizer derived from fossil fuels).

What i» am talking about is that when we use fossil fuels we release GHG's but also generate heat which escapes to the atmosphere, think of a car engine or an airconditioner for example.

Your estimates of climate sensitivity come from the IPCC, which assumes that aerosols will continue to provide a very strong cooling effect that offsets about half of the warming from CO2, but you are talking about time frames in which we have stopped burning fossil fuels, so is it appropriate to continue to assume the presence of cooling aerosols at these future times?

Though most of the time when TreeHugger covers electric cars, we're talking about hybrids, plug - in electric concept vehicles — basically substitutes for vehicles now powered by fossil fuels — some of which even putting the Porsche

I believe he's talking about burning out all reachable fossil fuels.

Furthermore, if you are talking about a 70 % reduction in CO2 emissions over 1990 levels (a reasonable target, but I do look forward to seeing the new IPCC outcomes for different emissions scenarios) then you can still use fossil fuels to meet that 30 % demand.

Greenpeace unleashed a press release that began with two words: «Greenpeace demands...» It talked about «climate chaos,» tipping points, and stoking «the fires of climate change by burning fossil fuels.»

2) The amounts you talk about PALE in comparison to the ANNUAL amounts spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies

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

Corporate Knights had a chance to sit down with Kortenhorst to talk about the new RMI - CWR alliance, the rise of the «transactive» grid, the fall of the fossil fuel industry, and what we can expect to see along the path to December's Paris climate summit.

So, when we talk about «more expensive energy» like wind and solar, what we are actually saying is that far more energy is consumed in making that energy to the supplier than for fossil fuels.

To waste time talking about the «two sides» of this distracting argument, as the total consumption of fossil fuels goes up as fast as it can be removed from the ground is a shame.

Retired Major Gen. Anthony L. Jackson of the US Marine Corp talked about the Defense Department initiatives to use more energy from clean, renewable sources and less from fossil fuels.

I talk about how when we burn fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas for our energy, it releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into our air supply.

And he also talked a bit about solar and wind power, but there was no reference at all to the underlying climate problem that is the primary reason we need to transition from fossil fuels.

When we talk about climate change, we're talking about the scientifically observable — and increasingly severe — changes in global climate patterns that became apparent in the mid-to-late twentieth century and can be attributed to the rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, in particular) produced by human activities like burning fossil fuels.

German policy leaders have talked about a transition away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy — an Energiewende — since the 1980s.

In 1995, in what is thought to be the first conference promoting climate science denial in Britain, the CEI's then president Fred Smith joined another US guest from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation for a series of talks that undermined warnings about the impacts of fossil fuels on the climate.

Unfortunately, CO2 also moves from the oceans and biosphere (and sequestered fossil fuels, due to our actions) into the atmosphere, which means you are talking about measuring a single interchange rate between various climate compartments, not total concentration changes in any one compartment.

«Politicians play a blame game and talk about safety, but new terminals keep getting rubber stamped and built,» said LaPoint, «If elected officials won't stop the fossil fuel takeover, we'll have to do it for them.»

No matter where you go with the «public is reluctant to accept catastrophic man - caused global warming» talking point, there is the «industry - corrupted skeptics» accusation — Gelbspan's accusation about leaked fossil fuel industry memos.

It is easy to talk about the bad side of fossil fuel, but if we park CO2, fossil fuel is usually built with a relatively small physical foot print relative to hydro, wind or solar.

For years, environmentalists talked about gas as a «bridge fuel» that could carry us from a fossil fuel past to a future powered by renewable energy.

I remember Murray Salby giving a talk about how the currently increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere was not caused by us burning fossil fuels.

The Madhouse Effect also pinpoints where these denialist talking points often originate, detailing many of the fossil fuel front groups whose representatives frequently mislead about climate change in major print and TV media without disclosing their glaring conflicts of interest.

Secondly the title below makes the specific reference to human CO2 when what we are talking about is the addition of fossil fuel CO2 to the carbon cycle.

They are talking about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming, but include the sea level rise from all warming effects, most of which occured long before we were burning fossil fuels at anywhere near current rates.

Neither Cook nor Nuccitelli have any serious physical sciences research experience (though Dana's experience in the fossil fuel industry may qualify as applied research — oddly it's something he doesn't like to talk about on blog).

During MSNBC's coverage of Hurricane Irma on Saturday, NextGen Climate founder Tom Steyer argued that politicians who take money from fossil fuel companies and lie about climate change don't want to talk about climate change now because they have «enabled»

Any other solution that doesn't really talks about keeping fossil fuels in the ground is a false solution and gives us this fake sense that we are tackling the crisis when we are actually exacerbating it.

While the leaders of the world talk about what to do at the U.N. and institutions like the Rockefeller Brothers Fund take positive steps to divest from fossil fuels (announced the day after the march), the movement for climate change action will have to grow, learn, and mobilize; and quickly if the 2 degree Celsius temperature increase scientists have warned about is to be averted.

While both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney embrace talk about energy — whether from fossil fuels or renewable sources — with various amounts of gusto, the focus is always economic, not environmental.

In a conversation with Yale Environment 360 contributor Elizabeth Kolbert, he talks about what he's learned about the power of the fossil fuel industry — and why the battle over Keystone is far from over.

Holdren does hardly more than repeat the Schneider - Gelbspan unsupportable talking point about fair media balance for skeptics, and Gelbspan's overall unsupportable accusation about fossil fuel money corrupting skeptics.

They would much rather talk about probabilities and weighted risk assessments than explain how climate science has solved a very simple equation (with very complicated science) over a critical period in our history when CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have risen rapidly.

Hansen said a credible candidate on climate change would be talking about policy that would allow the price of fossil fuels to rise gradually.

Over in Vermont, there's already talk about legislation to divest the state from fossil fuels.