Sentences with phrase «use of fossil fuels at»

The United States is in fact headed in the completely wrong direction on fossil fuels — pledging to revive the coal industry and pursuing multiple strategies to expand use of fossil fuels at home and abroad.

«Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.

WASHINGTON (Reuters)- The United States hopes to promote wider use of fossil fuels at a global meeting on climate change next week, a White House official said, reflecting the gaping divide between Washington and the rest of the world on the issue of global warming.

Despite adjusting its tone, ALEC has not relented in its promotion of policies that perpetuate the use of fossil fuels at the expense of the environment.

So, holding the use of fossil fuels at its present level would kill at least 2 billion people, mostly children.

Holding the use of fossil fuels at their present levels would kill billions of people, mostly children.

Not exact matches

But fossil fuels still account for the majority of both electricity use and primary energy use overall, and at no time in the near future will that change.

The shift away from pure fossil - fuel engines has been so fast that 2017 sales of cars using some form of electric battery power topped out at 52 percent, according to the Norwegian Road Federation (OFV).

Rive argues that it should stay underground, that the oil majors look at the world through petroleum - coated lenses, and that the benefits of solar are so obvious that once the price becomes more competitive, fossil - fuel use will plunge.

We're at a line in the sand here, where we can continue blindly marching over the cliff, or we can get a grip: ramp down fossil fuel use immediately, get an economic system geared to fixing up the mess we've made instead of enriching the few who already have far more than enough, nourish an ideology of cooperation instead of competition, and put the technology to more intelligent uses than convenience and mindless diversion.

The problem is aggravated by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels, which is at the heart of the worldwide energy system.

To give some sense of the scale: most scientists estimate that merely to hold climatic disruption at its current Katrina - spawning level we'd need an immediate worldwide 70 percent reduction in fossil fuel use.

A team of chemists at the University of Bristol have made significant steps towards developing a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels having produced a petrol using beer as a key ingredient.

The message: Cuomo is fully on board with those environmentalists who seek to block any project involving any use or expanded access to fossil fuels of any kind, at any time, in any place in New York State.

Proponents argue it would boost New York's natural gas supply to help keep energy costs down while creating jobs and generating tax revenue, while opponents, who rallied this month ahead of the decision, say it would increase fossil - fuel use, harm sensitive ecosystems and put the state at inordinate risk of dangerous methane leaks.

Denmark is on course to wean itself off the use of fossil fuels by 2050, according to a senior adviser at the Danish Industry Association, Hans Peter Slente.

Now a group of researchers led by Steven Kuznicki at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and Anthony Ku at General Electric think they can be used to screen out the carbon dioxide produced when processing or burning fossil fuels.

His calculations, based on 2008 figures for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, show that even assuming a lower estimate of forest carbon content, total and equivalent CO2 would level out at 476 parts per million, even if we stopped all fossil fuel use immediately.

«We found that nearly a billion metric tons of above - ground carbon stocks in Peru are at imminent risk for emission into the atmosphere due to land uses such as fossil fuel oil exploration, cattle ranching, oil palm plantations and gold mining,» Asner said.

The September report raised the probability that human actions, led by the use of fossil fuels, are the main cause of climate change since 1950 to at least 95 percent from 90.

«We need to develop the technologies that enable us to use our fossil fuels in a clean way,» Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told ScientificAmerican.com at the conference.

In order to replace a big fraction of fossil fuel power with solar power, we need a way to store energy from the bright noon sun to use at night or when it's cloudy.

«Tailpipe emissions are the main source of greenhouse gases from cars that use fossil fuels,» explained Anthony Shaw, a transport program specialist at the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, a nonprofit research organization.

No matter how you look at it, I think there's only one long - term solution: to stop using carbon as a source of energy, to switch away from using fossil fuels.

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/missingc.htm It is also worth noting that zeroing out CO2 emissions requires not only cessation of fossil fuel burning it also requires cessation of changes in land use which I believe account for about 20 % of CO2 emissions (at least that's my reading of the Woods Hole page).

«(I) The Administrator shall determine the amount of fossil fuel - based electricity delivered at retail by each electricity local distribution company, and shall use appropriate emission factors to calculate carbon dioxide emissions associated with the generation of such electricity.

But Steve Cohen, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said the increases in use of fossil fuels in China and India — which show few signs of abating — will push emissions in the opposite direction in 2015, and only the development of affordable renewable energy technology is likely to counter that trend.

Let us update this analysis to the present: fossil fuel emissions in 2007 — 2012 were 51 GtC [5], so, assuming no net emissions from land use in these few years, the M2009 study implies that the remaining budget at the beginning of 2013 was 128 GtC.

Second, scenarios with 2 °C or more warming necessarily imply expansion of fossil fuels into sources that are harder to get at, requiring greater energy using extraction techniques that are increasingly invasive, destructive and polluting.

In Sweden, wind, hydro, and solar power account for 52 percent of the electricity used, which places it at No. 1 in the world for sustainable energy use and puts it firmly on the path to becoming the first fossil - fuel - free nation.

Parts of foods that historically were disposed of, used for composting and considered waste or at best reserved for lower quality, utilitarian applications (like lamp oil) have suddenly become «food» through the alchemy of fossil fuel powered extraction and processing.

Kolbert brilliantly and engagingly combines science and travel writing to fully reveal how our use of fossil fuels is rapidly changing the atmosphere, the oceans, and the climate, potentially forcing millions of species into extinction and putting our own future at risk.

However, the Management and Guest Contributors at WUWT accept the basic truth that CO2, water vapor, and other «greenhouse gases» are responsible for an ~ 33ºC boost in mean Earth temperature, that CO2 levels are rising, partly due to our use of fossil fuels, that land use has changed Earth's albedo, and that this human actvity has caused additional warming.

I think, had Exxon continued in that role, there might not be such a cacophony of anti-climate arguments that are ongoing now because there would have been somebody at the table who came from the side of fossil fuel use and would have been shown to be a leader in terms of the science and this was their reasoned opinion as to what was going on.

Just in the U.S., if waste heat recovery devices were used at every oil, gas and manufacturing plant, 11.4 million homes could be powered by the electricity produced and it would have the bonus benefit of offsetting the need for the same amount of energy to be produced using fossil fuels.

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).

Extrapolating from their forest study, the researchers estimate that over this century the warming induced from global soil loss, at the rate they monitored, will be «equivalent to the past two decades of carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and is comparable in magnitude to the cumulative carbon losses to the atmosphere due to human - driven land use change during the past two centuries.»

The optimum amount of carbon in the biosphere could thus be estimated and be regarded at least in the first approximation as a useful guideline for us to calculate the amount of fossil fuels we can use to reach those conditions.

Fossil fuel interests are using their clout at the White House and in Congress to sabotage every renewable energy program that comes along, while make sure massive government subsidies, on the order of $ 100 billion a year when you count it all up, continue to flow to the fossil fuel industry (U.S. military expenditures are $ 500 billion a year, and good chunk of that is devoted to protecting overseas oilfields, for exaFossil fuel interests are using their clout at the White House and in Congress to sabotage every renewable energy program that comes along, while make sure massive government subsidies, on the order of $ 100 billion a year when you count it all up, continue to flow to the fossil fuel industry (U.S. military expenditures are $ 500 billion a year, and good chunk of that is devoted to protecting overseas oilfields, for exafossil fuel industry (U.S. military expenditures are $ 500 billion a year, and good chunk of that is devoted to protecting overseas oilfields, for example).

[J] ust as humanity confronted «revolutionary change» (Rerum Novarum) in the19th century at the time of Industrialization, today we have changed the natural environment so much that scientists, using a word coined by our Academy, tend to define our era as the Anthropocene, that is to say, a period of time in which human action is having a decisive impact on the planet due to the use of fossil fuels.

Energy Policy, the journal that recently published a paper laying out an ambitious plan to end fossil fuel use in New York State within a few decades, has now published a short critique by four researchers in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

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.

Some of the most seriously concerning forms of growth are fossil fuel use, nitrate fertilisers, pesticides, and heavy polluting industry.We are fortunate to have less damaging alternatives that may permit growth but at lower rates (eg renewable energy and permaculture).

# 27 — «One of the major levers that people look at in fighting GW is to raise costs of using fossil fuels by taxing them.»

Fossil fuel use may have some characteristics of an addiction, or at least an ingrained habit.

At least I have given some commentary, and I think about 2 % globally is ok medium term, but less in western countries, and more in poor countries, and it needs to be certain types of growth (eg not use of fossil fuels or massive quantities of fertilisers and the like).

One of the major levers that people look at in fighting GW is to raise costs of using fossil fuels by taxing them.

Efforts to reduce fossil fuel use are under way at every level of government — national, state, and city — as well as in corporations, utilities, and universities.

The «moral hazard» argument against CDR goes something like this: CDR could be a «Trojan horse» that fossil fuel interests will use to delay rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the prospect of cost - effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point in the future we'll have the CDR techniques to remove these present - day emissions).

You can point the finger at all sorts of participants in this battle, but I believe (and we have been examining and discussing at length on this site for more than 8 years now) the principal drivers of the polarization are coming more from: (1) the corporate energy interests who are protecting their profits against regulation and other policies that would move the system away from fossil fuels, and using their clout in the political process to tie things up; (2) right - wing anti-government and anti-regulatory ideologues whose political views appear threatened by scientific conclusions that point toward a need for stronger policy action; (3) people whose religious or cultural identities appear threatened by modern science; and so forth.