Sentences with phrase «warming emissions benefits»

Over the vehicle's lifetime, however, the global warming emissions benefits of driving on electricity far outweigh the emissions costs of vehicle manufacturing; most EVs «pay back» their production emissions within one or two years of driving, a period that will shorten as electricity grids get cleaner.

Not exact matches

That's a lot more planet - warming emissions, all to benefit handpicked corporations.

In 2002, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin mused that warming might benefit Russia - thereby easing pressure to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The United Nations Environment Program estimates that cutting back on methane and soot emissions alone could prevent 0.7 degree Celsius of additional warming by 2040 — and those cooling benefits could come faster than comparable cuts in CO2.

«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.

Nearly 200 nations agreed in Paris in 2015 to work together to cut emissions to keep warming in check - although President Donald Trump has since decided to exit the accord because, he says, it would cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars without benefit.

(C) potential metrics and approaches for quantifying the climatic effects of black carbon emissions, including its radiative forcing and warming effects, that may be used to compare the climate benefits of different mitigation strategies, including an assessment of the uncertainty in such metrics and approaches; and

Objectors often claim unfair benefits are given to the worst polluters, and that trading schemes obfuscate from the real problem — the excess of greenhouse gas emissions that continue to perpetuate global warming.

Because everyone in this global community will be affected by climate change, it will be for our own benefit if we manage to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in such a way that global warming is limited to less than 2 degrees Celsius», says Prof. Ulf Riebesell, marine biologist at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and coordinator of BIOACID.

The split or twin circuit cooling system offers the twin benefits of lowering CO2 emissions by enabling fast warm ups, and providing quick cabin heat on cold days.

It's an important moment for this message to sink in, because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting this week in Bangkok, is getting ready to dive in on a special report on the benefits of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above Earth's temperature a century or more ago and emissions paths to accomplish that (to learn what this murky number means in relation to the more familiar 2 - degree limit click here for a quick sketch, basic science, deep dive).

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..

Taking climate action can bring significant benefits to the United States, and the economic facts clearly support U.S. action to curb global warming emissions — including the prohibitive costs of doing nothing.

Nuclear power, which does not produce earth - warming emissions, is viewed with scepticism by many environmental activists, who say its dangers outweigh its benefits.

Although warming of only 1.5 degrees would result in much less harm to the climate than 2 degrees, it's possible that the ecological damage caused by the negative emissions projects needed to get there may exceed the benefits, at least for some.

According to the IPCC, the costs of reducing emissions to limit warming to below 2C are modest, even before taking into account co-benefits such as energy - security benefits and health improvement due to reduced air pollution.

The ecosystem costs of the emission reduction pathways may outweigh the benefits of lower warming.

It dramatically reduces global warming emissions, improves public health, and provides jobs and other economic benefits.

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.

In this book, ecologists, conservationists, lawyers, and atmospheric scientists detail the benefits of alternative market - based systems for reducing and sequestering the carbon emissions currently threatening the planet with global warming and the destruction of animal and human habitat.

This is how to demonstrate — using the climatariate's own tool (Social Cost of Carbon)-- what the true cost and benefit of GHG emissions and global warming are.

Posted in Advocacy, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Development and Climate Change, Ecosystem Functions, Environment, Financing, Flood, Forest, Global Warming, Governance, Government Policies, Green House Gas Emissions, Information and Communication, International Agencies, Livelihood, Nepal, News, Population, Poverty, Tourism, Vulnerability, Website - eNews Portal, Wetlands, Women Comments Off on Climate - Vulnerable Nepal to benefit from ambitious new initiative Tags: Adaptation to global warming, Asia - Pacific, Biodiversity, Climate change, Green economy, Greenhouse gas, Impacts and Indicators, Nepal, Sustainable deveWarming, Governance, Government Policies, Green House Gas Emissions, Information and Communication, International Agencies, Livelihood, Nepal, News, Population, Poverty, Tourism, Vulnerability, Website - eNews Portal, Wetlands, Women Comments Off on Climate - Vulnerable Nepal to benefit from ambitious new initiative Tags: Adaptation to global warming, Asia - Pacific, Biodiversity, Climate change, Green economy, Greenhouse gas, Impacts and Indicators, Nepal, Sustainable devewarming, Asia - Pacific, Biodiversity, Climate change, Green economy, Greenhouse gas, Impacts and Indicators, Nepal, Sustainable development

While Republican lawmakers in Washington have fought to protect coal - fired power plants, opposing President Barack Obama's efforts to curtail climate - warming carbon emissions, data show their home states are often the ones benefiting most from the nation's accelerating shift to renewable energy.

While environmental activists and some politicians claim «the debate is over» and call for immediate action to reduce man - made greenhouse gas emissions, others say the science points to only a very small human impact — too small to warrant concern — and the costs of trying to prevent global warming far exceed the benefits.

In fact, under reasonable alternative assumptions, one of the models used to estimate the SCC provides a negative estimate of the SCC — implying that there are net benefits to global warming, which would argue for subsidizing, not taxing, CO2 emissions.

What the EPA does not communicate clearly to the public, however, is that none of these health benefits come from decreasing carbon dioxide emissions to avoid global warming, but from coincidental benefits (or «co-benefits») from reducing other air pollutants which the EPA already heavily regulates.

No policy to abate global warming by controlling CO2 emissions would prove cost - effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit from climate mitigation.

A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely offset the theoretical warming; if natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions, by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.

«So far, the benefits of global greening have been greater than expected, while the costs of global warming have been smaller than expected and the price of reducing carbon dioxide emissions has been higher than expected.

On the contrary, the Earth has warmed as much as expected, and economic research has consistently shown that putting a price on carbon emissions will result in a net benefit to the economy (Figure 6).

For the average consumer, stronger standards would translate to fewer global warming emissions associated with the products we use and love, and more affordable shipping as companies realize the cost - saving benefits of using less fuel.

The FUND integrated assessment model (the ONLY model that includes benefits of warming and CO2 fertilization) gives a net social benefit of CO2 emissions of US$ 16.6 / tCO2 [21.3 - 4.3 US$ / tCO2 at 5 - 95 % CI].

6 December, 2007 Dear Power Consumer: While we all want our governments to do something about carbon emissions and planetary warming, many of us believe that it is important to consider the total impact of any project that claims to benefit our society.

This course toward a clean energy future, or «CPP national trading case,» would not only help diversify our nation's electricity mix and cut global warming emissions but also deliver significant health and economic benefits across the country.

In contrast, the tropics, already warm, do not benefit from further warming, but they are not as hard hit by ozone damage because ozone - precursor emissions are lower in the tropics.

The estimated social benefit of carbon should include an estimated 20 % increase in crop yields that can conservatively be attributed directly to the higher CO2 concentration, plus the net benefit to humanity of a world that is roughly 1ºC warmer (of which, say, half was a result of human CO2 emissions).

And as discussed many times on this blog, reducing human - caused CO2 emissions will have no significant effect on global warming, which is a benefit in modest amounts anyway.

Objectors often claim unfair benefits are given to the worst polluters, and that trading schemes obfuscate from the real problem — the excess of greenhouse gas emissions that continue to perpetuate global warming.

A cost - effective pathway for Pennsylvania to cut global warming emissions and deliver significant health and economic benefits for all its residents.