Sentences with phrase «warming pollution because»

Brazil, for example, has reduced its deforestation - related emissions by two - thirds in just six years, and Indonesia, a large emitter of global warming pollution because of high rates of deforestation, has pledged to cut overall emissions by more than 25 percent by 2020.

Not exact matches

Coral reefs are dying: We've already lost half the world's coral because of human activity like dredging the sea floor, pollution, and emitting greenhouse gases that warm ocean waters and make them more acidic.

But because we committed in Paris to avoiding dangerous global warming, it's already clear that Canada's long - term picture involves very little greenhouse gas pollution.

These were cheaper because of agribusiness methods of production that do not count the cost of lost soil, contribution to global warming, the exhaustion of aquifers, or the pollution of waterways.

Two Atlantic Ocean coral species — elkhorn and staghorn — are listed as «threatened» under the Endangered Species Act, and NOAA is considering whether an additional 82 coral species also warrant some level of protection under the law because of threats from warming water, ocean acidification and pollution.

Scientists have been interested in the effects of pollution on Arctic clouds because of their potential warming effect.

Indeed, conventional wisdom held that higher levels of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere should cool the earth's climate because aerosols can increase cloudiness; they not only reduce precipitation, which raises the water content in clouds, but they also increase the size of the individual water droplets, which in turn causes more warming sunlight to be reflected back into space.

If we are despondent about global warming, pollution, overpopulation or continuing political conflict it is because we are not yet capable of seeing the world through Metaman's eyes, he suggests.

Aerosols in urban air pollution and from major industries such as the Canadian tar sands are of concern to scientists because they can affect regional climate patterns and have helped to warm the Arctic.

But most of what they are doing is not visible, because it is rooted in local concerns, such as urban air pollution, rather than fear of global warming.

As I understand it (from the IPCC report and from Ramanathan en Feng, Sept 23 2008 in PNAS) stopping all emissions suddenly would cause about 1.6 degree Celsius of extra warming, because short - lived pollution would quickly be removed from the atmosphere.

But it's concerning, because similar sea surface warming is now well underway as greenhouse gas pollution heats up the globe.

It also found evidence that NASA headquarters press officials canceled a press conference on a mission monitoring ozone pollution and global warming because it was too close to the 2004 presidential election.»

«A rapid cutback in greenhouse gas emissions could speed up global warming... because current global warming is offset by global dimming — the 2 - 3ºC of cooling cause by industrial pollution, known to scientists as aerosol particles, in the atmosphere.»

The more posts I read the more of a recurring theme I see and that is people have a real problem with pollution because they think it is the source of the all scary Global Warming.

Couric: So you do believe... that man is contributing to global warming, because you just said they're causing pollution.

I don't know Seth, but I totally agree there's huge potential in electric vehicle retrofits, because the volume of new electric and plug - in hybrid cars is, at present, too small to meet the demand or to make a big dent in local air pollution and global warming emissions.

Not only because it signals (again) that the world's largest emitter may be starting to tackle global warming (and conventional air pollution), but because it tosses another shovelful of dirt on a longtime U.S. excuse for inaction.

Because of these impacts and its contributions to global warming pollution, it is critical that this region take swift action to curb global warming emissions.

Other influences: aerosols, likely cooling, though the temporal variation is key (eg, they are net cooling overall, but their trend in the past 20 years may actually be net warming because of sulfate pollution control in the industrialized nations).

UBS analysts say utilities in Europe need to shut down 30 % of their gas, coal, and oil - fed power capacity by 2017, not to fight global warming, cut pollution, or cut fuel imports, but because renewable energy is pushing fossil fuels off the grid.

The approximate stand - still of global temperature during 1940 - 1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.

Has it gone down because of global warming or pollution?

That's partly because of a long campaign by fossil fuel interests to muddy the science on global warming and fight pollution regulation.

These overlooked, shorter - term pollutants — mostly from burning wood and kerosene and from driving trucks and cars — cause more localized warming than once thought, the authors of the report say.They contend there should be a greater effort to attack this type of pollution for faster results.For decades, scientists have concentrated on carbon dioxide, the most damaging greenhouse gas because it lingers in the atmosphere for decades.

The green house gases are the reasons for the global warming and it is plenty in this world because of the pollution.

The planet is warming because of manmade carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases emitted from human activities like burning fossil fuels.

The approximate stand - still of global temperature during 1940 - 1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but satisfactory quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.

Partly this is because it's hard to beat the blunt biodiversity effects of direct habitat destruction (like deforestation) and partly that is because climate warming is often a slow process, for instance in the deep oceans, where its ecological effects are «outpaced» by the rapidly escalating plastic pollution — admittedly an impossible comparison.

The world is warming because of carbon pollution from fossil fuels like oil and coal.

Many lines of evidence now confirm our planet is warming because of carbon pollution released when humans burn fossil fuels like oil and coal.

By the end of the 1970s, most scientists were coming to the conclusion that the world would indeed warm because of carbon pollution.

Those who want to preserve the status quo have continued to deny and attack the expert consensus because it's a «gateway belief»: when people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it, and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.

Because carbon pollution is warming the planet.

Because we're putting 35 billion tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every year.

Of course there are many ways to look at this issue; there's much to be said about the negative externalities associated with industrial agriculture because, as he notes, food production «exacerbate [s] global warming, river and ocean pollution, and a host of other ills.»

As I understand it (from the IPCC report and from Ramanathan en Feng, Sept 23 2008 in PNAS) stopping all emissions suddenly would cause about 1.6 degree Celsius of extra warming, because short - lived pollution would quickly be removed from the atmosphere.