Sentences with phrase «term emissions benefit»

So, although methane leakage reduces the short - term emissions benefit of switching from coal to gas — and should be addressed for that reason — it does not limit natural gas's potential as a bridge fuel to a low - carbon future.

Not exact matches

This extensive system of agriculture results in a more natural, welfare - friendly model of farming which has benefits both in terms of carbon emissions and sequestration.

«If economics is the sole focus, then less expensive technologies that require significant amounts of energy for their manufacture, maintenance and replacement might win out — even if they ultimately increase greenhouse gas emissions and negate the long - term benefits of implementing wind and solar power.»

«Speed reductions, which are known to reduce emissions, would need to be maintained over a very long - term period in order to produce regional air quality benefits,» said James Corbett, a professor of marine policy at the University of Delaware, who has studied the impact of the shipping industry on human health.

It showed that the health benefits to the US of reducing GHG emissions are significant, and in monetary terms would exceed the costs of reducing GHGs.

The researchers were also not able to calculate a genuine long - term «climate benefit» from the early restriction of emissions such as methane or fluorocarbons.

«The overall significance is that although we already know that reducing methane emissions can bring great societal benefits via decreased near - term warming and improved air quality, and that many of the sources can be controlled at low or even negative cost, we still need better data on emissions from particular sources,» Duke University climate sciences professor Drew Shindell said.

If the world were to cut 45 percent of methane emissions by 2025, as studies suggest, it would have the same short - term climate benefit as closing one - third of the world's coal plants.

As has been shown by both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the insightful peer - reviewed work of Bob Howarth at Cornell, there is no appreciable benefit in terms of greenhouse gas emissions by switching from coal to gas.

The agency chose these actions because it said they all meet these criteria: They can result in significant near - term emissions reductions, do not curb economic growth, rely only on existing technologies and proven policies and produce significant benefits beyond climate change mitigation.

Any program that reduces current emissions by some percent but doesn't contribute to cutting long - term atmospheric GHGs will not produce tangible climate change benefits except the lame claim that «things would be even worse» if we do nothing.

The piece claims a pecuniary motive for the scientists pushing for emissions limits, while ignoring the far greater monetary benefit going to companies and factions seeking to sustain society's fossil energy norms while fighting any effort (modest or ambitious) to limit long - term environmental risks from those energy choices.

And in terms of this program today, there's an enormous benefit in terms of the long - term transition to a carbon - free economy, because while — out here in California half of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation.

In terms of policymaking, the benefits of reducing carbon emissions will significantly outweigh the costs, as explored in more detail here.

I am no convinced that trying to reduce GHG emission will deliver any significant benefits in terms of «reduced climate damages».

To be effective, the successor to the Clean Development Mechanism must guarantee real, measurable and long - term benefits both in terms of emission reductions and...

Thus, today there's a keener appreciation that cap - and - trade regimes such as Europe's ambitious Emissions Trading System have been costly failures, with one study suggesting the E.T.S. had «limited benefits and embarrassing consequences» in terms of emissions — at an estimated cost to consumers of some $ 280Emissions Trading System have been costly failures, with one study suggesting the E.T.S. had «limited benefits and embarrassing consequences» in terms of emissions — at an estimated cost to consumers of some $ 280emissions — at an estimated cost to consumers of some $ 280 billion.

Science Paper: One of the key papers describing the benefits of emissions controls is the journal paper «Simultaneously Mitigating Near - Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security», Shindell et al., Science, 2012, which can be freely accessed without a subscription courtesy of Science.

We need to reduce carbon emissions for climate reasons, and should leave fossil fuels in the ground even if it means losing short - term economic benefits, but exposing Australia and the world to greater climate risk for no good reason seems like madness.

It should not, therefore, be surprising that formal efforts to weigh the near - term costs of emissions abatement against the long - term benefits from avoided global warming show few net benefits, even in theory.

And finally, we will discuss strategies to reduce forces other than CO2 that are potent contributors to global warming, yet can be reduced quickly and with significant near - term benefits while buying the world time to reduce CO2 emissions.

To achieve the maximum climate benefits of bioenergy in terms of greenhouse gas emissions avoided, the amount of carbon dioxide released during biomass production, processing, transportation and use should be equal to or smaller than the amount that was absorbed by the harvested biomass.

(7) Even very optimistic assumptions concerning what might be «achieved» in terms of reducing CO2 emissions using these models and even assuming that the December Paris UN COP meeting is «successful» beyond all expectations suggest that the «benefits» are not worth their huge cost and would disproportionately adversely impact the world's poor.

Since then, many attempts have been made to read the tea leaves in hopes of predicting what approach EPA will take to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants — the big fish in terms of potential pollution benefits (86 % of U.S.

«Accordingly, as we concluded in D.P.U. 10 - 54, at 229 - 230, the Cape Wind facility will produce far greater benefits in terms of its: (1) contribution to narrowing the projected gap between supply and demand of renewable resources; (2) contribution to compliance with GWSA emission reductions requirements; (3) contribution to fuel diversity; (4) price suppression effects; (5) ability to act as a hedge against future fuel price increases and volatility; (6) contribution to system reliability; and (7) ability to moderate system peak load.

And it is true that over the short term, fugitive methane emissions have the potential to erode most or all of the CO2 emissions benefit resulting from switching from coal to gas.

Its main premise is that both the short - and long - term benefits of using fossil fuels greatly outweigh the risks of any climate change that may occur as the result of the accompanying carbon dioxide emissions.

In the near term, HEVs and PHEVs with small battery packs are more robust, offering more air - emission and oil - displacement benefits per dollar spent.

The difference between Professor Nordhaus's optimal carbon tax policy and a fifty - year delay policy is insignificant economically or climatologically in view of major uncertainties in (1) future economic growth (including reductions in carbon emissions intensity); (2) the physical science (e.g., the climate sensitivity); (3) future positive and negative environmental impacts (e.g., the economic «damage function»); (4) the evaluation of long - term economic costs and benefits (e.g., the discount rate); and (5) the international political process (e.g., the impact of less than full participation).

There can be no long - term CO2 emissions reduction benefit to installing more and more wind power if the long - term net effect of doing so leads to the requisite construction of more fossil fuel energy plants.

We support educating the public and policymakers in government and industry about the harmful human health effects of global climate change, and about the immediate and long - term health benefits associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., heat - trapping pollution) and taking other preventive and protective measures that contribute to sustainability.

So in this case, plugging in to public charging provides a substantial public health and environmental benefit in terms of emissions saved.

When near - term impacts are deemed most important, the results indicate that society can reap the greatest benefits by targeting emissions reductions at PIC and sulfur dioxide.

Similarly, development of clean energy technologies, though primarily designed to promote energy security, can also generate large benefits in terms of reducing carbon emissions.

However, framing the harm of emissions in terms of their global effect, while framing the economic benefits of increased employment as a local benefit, makes costs look small and benefits large.

Pepperidge Farm discusses the benefits in environmental terms: together, the two power plants will reduce the company's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by about 9,400 tons compared with using grid power.

Similarly, reducing CH4 emissions by ~ 12 % provides as much benefit as reducing CO2 emissions by 10 % with a near - term perspective, while reductions need to be 30 % with a long - term view.

«There appears to be a large opportunity for emission reductions that provide short - term economic and health benefits, and every attempt should be made to promote national policies and international cooperation that can help states, nations, and the world achieve these benefits,» the Secretaries write in the foreword to the study report, No Reason to Wait: the Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Reduction in Sao Paulo and Calbenefits, and every attempt should be made to promote national policies and international cooperation that can help states, nations, and the world achieve these benefits,» the Secretaries write in the foreword to the study report, No Reason to Wait: the Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Reduction in Sao Paulo and Calbenefits,» the Secretaries write in the foreword to the study report, No Reason to Wait: the Benefits of Greenhouse Gas Reduction in Sao Paulo and CalBenefits of Greenhouse Gas Reduction in Sao Paulo and California.

many health related local pollution controls can also generate significant co benefits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The expansion of corn for ethanol in the American Midwest has worsened water pollution and soil erosion, and has had no benefit in terms of reduced emissions.

In doing so, we are not only driving our emissions reductions — but also making bold choices that benefit our business long - term.

The result is that the benefits in terms of CO2 emission reduction are considered irrelevant.