Sentences with phrase «warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions»

Professor Reif wrote, «Yesterday, the White House took the position that the Paris climate agreement — a landmark effort to combat global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions — was a bad deal for America.»

India's stance during climate talks is that developed countries should be legally committed to addressing global warming by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, and that developing countries should do what they say they can do to help out.

CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE Protect species and habitats from global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE Protect species and habitats from global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

Not exact matches

It obliges the UK to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 % by 2050 compared to 1990 levels and to adapt to the risks associated with a warming planet.

Indeed, the reduction in the emission of precursors to polluting particles (sulphur dioxide) would diminish the concealing effects of Chinese aerosols, and would speed up warming, unless this effect were to be compensated elsewhere, for instance by significantly reducing long - life greenhouse gas emissions and «black carbon.»

«There is still time to avoid most of this warming and get to a stable climate by the end of this century, but in order to do that, we have to aggressively reduce our fossil fuel use and emissions of greenhouse gas pollutants.»

In 2006 California passed a law — the Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32)-- that pledged the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emission levels back to 1990 levels by 2020.

Written by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, the report concludes that the world is on a path to a 4 °C warmer world by end of this century and that current pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will not reduce warming by very much.

To comply, the 182 nations that signed the protocol must meet targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases — climate - warming gases that include the common industrial by - products carbon dioxide and methane.

As part of its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global warming from exceeding 2 °C (3.6 °F), the Obama administration unveiled a plan in September to build wind farms off of nearly every U.S. coastline by 2050 — enough turbines to generate zero - carbon electricity for more than 23 million homes.

Cost - effective mitigation pathways to limit warming to 2 °C require reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by 40 — 70 % below current levels by 2050.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

At the same time it will help mitigate and solve catastrophic consequences of human - induced global warming and climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

The argument for geoengineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer; governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?

You only can do that is avoid them in advance long time before, this means remove the reason of big strom and drought, some kind of global warming consequences by reduce greenhouse gas emission.

It is nesscery to reduce greenhouse gas emission by our efforts, but homan being have to find a lot of ways to fight with global warming.

From The Guardian: «The connection to the chemical firm Solvay suggests opposition to action on global warming, once spearheaded by big oil, is spreading to other industries that will also be affected by proposals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases.»

Although APS plans to reduce its coal burn from the current 35 % to 17 % by 2029, by increasing its natural gas burn from 19 % to 35 %, it will actually increase its greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, since the global warming potential from methane, which is leaked at multiple points of the natural gas supply chain, is 86 times that of carbon over 20 years, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 report.

When it is signed into law by Brown, SB 32 will extend the climate targets adopted by the state under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which required California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost - effective.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent by 2020 through market - based mechanisms.

For countries worried about global warming, there is a target to reduce EU greenhouse - gas emissions by at least a fifth of their 1990 level before 2020.

By failing to do so, the court said, the DEP was falling short of complying with the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act, which says that by 2050, greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by at least 80 percent below 1990 levelBy failing to do so, the court said, the DEP was falling short of complying with the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act, which says that by 2050, greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by at least 80 percent below 1990 levelby 2050, greenhouse gas emissions be reduced by at least 80 percent below 1990 levelby at least 80 percent below 1990 levels.

The report, The Critical Decade: Extreme Weather, suggests worsening weather exacerbated by global warming is inevitable in coming decades, even if action is taken immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2006, the European Union (EU), which consists of 27 members, committed to reducing its global warming emissions by at least 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2020, to consuming 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, and to reducing its primary energy use by 20 percent from projected levels through increased energy efficiency.1 The EU has also committed to spending $ 375 billion a year to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.2 The EU is meeting these goals through binding national commitments which vary depending on the unique situation of a given country but which average out to the overall targets.

As a result there is a huge gap between national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions that have been made thus far under the UNFCCC and global ghg emissions reductions that are necessary to limit warming to 2 oC, a warming limit that has been agreed to by the international community as necessary to prevent very dangerous climate change.

People obviously see though Jerry Brown's feeble attempt to quash this by naming the initiative «Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.»

The link between adverse impacts such as more wildfires, ecosystem changes, extreme weather events etc. and their mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions hinges on detecting unusual events for at least the past century and then actually attributing them to human caused warming.

Under the Paris accord, which took years to reach, rich and poor countries committed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases generated by burning fossil fuels that are blamed by scientists for warming the planet.

Rose's contribution claimed «for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped», drawing on an analysis handed to him by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the club for climate change «sceptics» that was set up by Lord Lawson in November 2009 to campaign against policies to reduce greenhouse gas emiwarming has stopped», drawing on an analysis handed to him by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the club for climate change «sceptics» that was set up by Lord Lawson in November 2009 to campaign against policies to reduce greenhouse gas emiWarming Policy Foundation, the club for climate change «sceptics» that was set up by Lord Lawson in November 2009 to campaign against policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Endangered Species Act protection is necessary to safeguard warming - threatened mountain species from all threats, as well as protecting their habitats — and the planet — from runaway global warming by helping spur strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the local, national and international scale.

Brussels, 21 June 2005: Friends of the Earth Europe called on EU governments to drastically increase their efforts to combat global warming by reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions, as shocking new data released today by the European Commission shows a dramatic increase in emissions.

Both wetland drying and the increased frequency of warm dry summers and associated thunderstorms have led to more large fires in the last ten years than in any decade since record - keeping began in the 1940s.9 In Alaskan tundra, which was too cold and wet to support extensive fires for approximately the last 5,000 years, 105 a single large fire in 2007 released as much carbon to the atmosphere as had been absorbed by the entire circumpolar Arctic tundra during the previous quarter - century.106 Even if climate warming were curtailed by reducing heat - trapping gas (also known as greenhouse gas) emissions (as in the B1 scenario), the annual area burned in Alaska is projected to double by mid-century and to triple by the end of the century, 107 thus fostering increased emissions of heat - trapping gases, higher temperatures, and increased fires.

«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.

While the bill and likely substitute amendment offered by Senator Boxer would initiate the first step in placing a declining cap on greenhouse gas emissions so the United States can do its part to reduce the impacts of global warming,...

The US apparent unwillingness to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions beyond what it is already on track to achieve is of considerable controversy in the Qatar negotiations this week because of the growing scientific concern about the potential inevitability of catastrophic warming caused by human activities.

Nevertheless, it seems likely that a CO2 concentration in the range 500 to 900 ppm might produce a temperature rise of at least 2 °C from the late 19th century that could be problematic for humankind; (7) The potential negative impact on humanity has been exaggerated; (8) The only alternative to rising greenhouse gas concentrations is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions — whether this averts a «pending disaster» is not well understood; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 probably resulting in some warming; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are neither technically feasible nor economically affordable, and would necessitate inadequate energy supply to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing, leading to worldwide depression.

It also thinks that correcting post-tax subsidies alone would reduce global warming greenhouse gas emissions by 13 % in advanced economies.

... [Clinton's] plan would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming... Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030...

«Comparing the amount of warming in the U.S. saved by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by some 80 % to the amount of warming added in the U.S. by increases in Asian black carbon (soot) aerosol emissions (at least according to Teng et al.) and there is no clear winner.

Research such as this is vital because, although the most visible attempts to reduce global warming and mitigate climate change depend on lowering greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, there is another, parallel, approach: to limit the emissions that spring from land use change, chiefly by preserving natural forests.

Assembly Bill 32 (California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, or AB 32) requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

By that we mean their firewood is harvested sustainably, it is burned cleanly and efficiently, and its energy is used to reduce the net greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

By 2030, Stern says, the world must reduce its greenhouse - gas emissions by roughly 20 % from the current level to have a chance of limiting warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, the UNFCCC's stated goaBy 2030, Stern says, the world must reduce its greenhouse - gas emissions by roughly 20 % from the current level to have a chance of limiting warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, the UNFCCC's stated goaby roughly 20 % from the current level to have a chance of limiting warming to 2 °C above pre-industrial temperatures, the UNFCCC's stated goal.

Assembly Bill 32 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, established the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and serves as the comprehensive framework for addressing climate change.

In order to avoid dangerous global warming, we need to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by about 50 % by the year 2050.

To be sure, it remains essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by strengthening the Kyoto Protocol and augmenting it with other measures; otherwise, the amount of future warming civilization eventually will have to endure will prove too great to survive.

We further recognize the need to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases by 80 % by mid-century at the latest, in order to avert the worst impacts of global warming and to reestablish the more stable climatic conditions that have made human progress over the last 10,000 years possible.

By redoubling their climate efforts, he said, cities, states and corporations could achieve, or even surpass, the pledge of the administration of former President Barack Obama to reduce America's planet - warming greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent by 2025, from their levels in 2005.&raquBy redoubling their climate efforts, he said, cities, states and corporations could achieve, or even surpass, the pledge of the administration of former President Barack Obama to reduce America's planet - warming greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent by 2025, from their levels in 2005.&raquby 2025, from their levels in 2005.»