Sentences with phrase «then reduce global emissions»

A new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that the world community could slow and then reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) over the next several decades by exploiting cost - effective policies and current and emerging technologies.

Not exact matches

If that smaller group's offer is sufficient — that is, if it promises to reduce emissions by the proportional amount necessary to achieve the global goal — then it should be successful in the larger venue.

The jist of this is that we must NOT suddenly switch off carbon / sulphur producing industries over the planet but instead we must first dramatically reduce CO2 emissions from every conceivable source, then gradually tackle coal / fossil fuel sources to smoothly remove the soot from the air to prevent a sudden leap in average global temps which if it is indeed 2.75 C as the UNEP predicts will permanently destroy the climates ability to regulate itself and lead to catastrophic changes on the land and sea.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are presently increasing every year at an accelerating rate, and it is extremely unlikely that humanity will collectively do what is necessary to not only stop that growth in CO2 emissions, but reverse it, and then reduce emissions by 80 percent or more within 5 to 10 years, which is what mainstream climate scientists say is needed to avoid the worst outcomes of anthropogenic global warming.

So, even conservative estimates of committed warming indicate that we have to urgently reduce radiative forcing, in other words peak global GHG emissions as soon as possible and then reduce them as quickly as possible by reducing our use of fossil fuels drastically, if we want to have a chance at keeping warming under 2C.

«If we do get a global deal on climate that locks in a target for reducing emissions... then I think the fossil fuel companies do face a very bleak outlook,» said Mark Lewis, chief energy economist at Kepler Cheuvreux, a Paris - based brokerage.

They suggest drastic measures that would reduce the rate of CO2 emissions to that of 30 years ago as a solution while failing to show their logic flaws such as how if global warming was an issue 30 years ago, then how could us going back to the level of emissions then solve anything?

«If we do get a global deal on climate that locks in a target for reducing emissions... then I think the fossil fuel companies do face a very bleak outlook,» said Mark Lewis, chief energy economist at

The Warsaw outcome mentions for the first time «nationally determined contributions» to reducing GHG emissions, reflecting a step away from a global budget approach (whereby we say that the supposedly «safe» temperature increase of 2 degrees could only be achieved if we emit X amount of carbon, and the game is to then decide who can emit what share) to a «pledge and review» approach (Whereby countries «pledge» to do what is «nationally appropriate» given their circumstances).

In order for this to be achieved, the global GHG emissions must be stabilised and then reduced.

Although a warming limit of 2 degrees C has been preliminarily agreed to in international negotiations, subject to the acknowledged need to examine whether the limit should be reduced to 1.5 degrees C in studies that are underway, once a warming limit is finalized it must be translated into a ghg atmospheric concentration goal and then a global ghg emissions budget can be calculated.

«If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.»

It's a classic dilemma: If the solution to the climate problem is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through nuclear power, then future generations spared catastrophic global warming must figure out what to do with our radioactive waste.

These range from the low - end, where atmospheric CO2 concentration peaks and then falls during this century (RCP2.6), to the high - end, with no action to reduce global emissions (RCP8.5).

By then, annual CO2 emissions from the US and EU will be somewhat reduced (my prediction, based on recent trends), CO2 emissions from industrializing nations will be higher, alternative sources of energy will be cheaper; and we'll have 20 more years of experience with the natural disasters that will recur dramatically with or without global mean warming or cooling.

Since then research has added robustness to the findings, and the UN Paris Agreement of December 2015 has reflected a global commitment to one of the key messages of the film — the need to reduce carbon emissions to zero before 2100.

By then not only climate scientists, but I would think a large part of the global population will be fully aware of the dangerous consequences of global warming and the urgency of public policies to reduce carbon emissions — thanks in a large part to Dr. Mann, James Hansen and many other vocal figures in the climate science community.

For that to happen, says the Tyndall Centre's Kevin Anderson, «global emissions from energy need to reach a peak by around 2020, and then rapidly reduce to zero by 2050 at the latest.»

The deadline for effective action to curb global warming, he argues, is 2030, and by then we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 %, nothing less.