Sentences with phrase «warming pollution if»
He picked a series of lobbyists and a vice-president at the core of his campaign that will try to prevent serious regulation of man - made global warming pollution if they are elected.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ Not exact matches
«But if the current trajectory of carbon pollution levels continues unchecked, the world is on track for at least three degrees of warming.
Dr Meleady, a lecturer in psychology, added: «If similar interventions were to be implemented in comparable situations in other cities and countries, the potential contribution to reducing air pollution, improving short and long term health, and reducing effects of global warming could be substantial.»
But even if the carbon released during production were somehow captured and sequestered — a technology that remains unproven at any meaningful scale — some studies indicate that liquid coal would still release 4 to 8 percent more global warming pollution than regular gasoline.
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.
As it turned out, the world's temperature has risen about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) and mainstream scientists continue to predict, with increasing urgency, that if emissions are not curtailed, carbon pollution would lock in warming of as much as 3 to 6 °C (or 5 to 11 °F) over the next several decades.
``... one study found that the feedback from just the CO2 released by the thawing permafrost alone could add 1.5 °F to total global warming by 2100, if we don't sharply curtail carbon pollution as soon as possible.»
If coal is to remain a part of our energy future, it must be mined responsibly, burned cleanly and guaranteed to not worsen global warming pollution.
The scientists concluded in the paper that their findings, combined with projected ongoing warming, show that even if rates of climate pollution are reigned in, that «may not be sufficient to avoid significant impacts» of acidification on coral reef regeneration.
There's a reason travelers are enamoured of destinations showcasing our planet's fragile state: Given global warming, industrial pollution, vanishing rainforests and climate change, green initiatives have never been more critical if we're to protect the environment for future generations.
If human - induced global warming, among other factors such as human - driven pollution and human - forced overpopulation, serve decisively to precipitate the massive extinction of biodiversity, the irreversible degradation of Earth's environment and the reckless dissipation of its resources, so as to make our planetary home unfit for life as we know it, then is no one to bear responsibility for such a colossal wreckage as we could help to perpetrate in these early years of Century XXI?
«We have dumpted (today) another 70 million tons of global - warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer,...»
If you want to assume that aerosols resulting from pollution produced by the burning of fossil fuels were responsible for the cooling evident from 1940 through the late 70's, then you have no reason to claim ANY degree of warming due to CO2 forcing during any earlier period.
She and I agreed that, if anything, folks should be far more concerned about the tropics in a warming climate, given how many regions are close to physical limits for heat now and other factors, like fragmentation of rain forests and pollution impacts on reefs, are adding stress.
It may be abundant, but if we want to prevent catastrophic global warming we need to do more than just make sure minimal pollution controls are in place, we need to phase out the burning of coal.
If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, makingmatters worse in the long run.
If environmental groups and their backers want to see concrete progress on limiting the risk that humans will propel dangerous global warming, they may need more than just additional money and better organization, but also a hard look at core strategies and a philosophy that has long cast climate change as primarily a conventional pollution problem, not a technology problem.
If we want to reduce CO2, global warming and pollution (and the decline of the US economy), buy American.
And carbon is «pollution» only if it significantly contributes to global warming, so your argument has to assume its conclusion!
I feel like I have to remind people that even if global warming is false we should always do what we can to conserve our resources and lessen pollution.
Defines «reporting entity» to mean: (1) a covered entity; (2) an entity that would be covered if it had emitted, produced, imported, manufactured, or delivered in 2008 or any subsequent year more than the applicable threshold level of carbon dioxide; (3) other entities that EPA determines will help achieve overall goals of reducing global warming pollution; (4) any vehicle fleet with emissions of more than 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent on an annual basis, if its inclusion will help achieve such reduction; (5) any entity that delivers electricity to a facility in an energy - intensive industrial sector that meets the energy or GHG intensity criteria.
But if we frame global warming as pollution, and assert that the polluter should pay, then suddenly this otherwise completely abstruse, overly technical problem becomes much easier for the public to understand.
Under the worst - case scenario investigated, if pollution continues unabated, and if seas respond to ongoing warming by rising at the fastest rates considered likely, sea levels could rise more than 4 feet this century alone, wiping out coastal infrastructure and driving communities inland.
If not managed and monitored carefully, biomass for energy can be harvested at unsustainable rates, damage ecosystems, produce harmful air pollution, consume large amounts of water, and produce net global warming emissions.
Business and pollution as usual offers half - measures and promises action just in time, if we are lucky, before the planet warms sufficiently to cause massive crop failure as industrial civilization collapses amidst flood, drought, famine, war, mass migration of the desperate, epidemics.
If it is not going to happen with global warming or pollution, it WILL happen through other means.
Mr. Clapp said environmental groups had estimated that if the energy plan was fully put into effect, it would increase the pollution that causes global warming by 35 percent over the next decade.
When asked if specific health problems will become more or less common over the next 10 years in their community due to global warming, more than one third of Americans think the following conditions will become more common: air pollution, including smog (38 %); pollen - related allergies (38 %); asthma / other lung diseases (37 %); heat stroke (36 %); and bodily harm from severe storms and / or hurricanes (34 %).
That lack of immediate concern may in part stem from a lack of understanding that today's pollution will heat the planet for centuries to come, as explained in this Denial101x lecture: So far humans have caused about 1 °C warming of global surface temperatures, but if we were to freeze the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at today's levels, the planet would continue warming.
If the warming was caused by a brightening sun or reduced sulphate pollution, you'd still see a hot spot.
«The hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now, and even if we Americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come,» Obama went on to say, «the seas will slowly keep rising; the storms will get more severe, based on the science.
The best estimate from the best science is that people can limit warming from human - caused carbon pollution to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)-- if society acts now.
If we take this path toward a clean energy future, we know we can stop the worst effects of global warming while reviving our economy, rescuing America from its dependence on fossil fuels, reducing pollution and threats to our health, protecting the natural resources that we depend upon for survival, and creating millions of good jobs right here at home.
Even if Global Warming did not exist, there is plenty of evidence that, pollution in general, is damaging to our three Great Kingdoms... animal, vegetable, mineral.
Even if we stopped emitting carbon pollution today, our world would continue to warm for a long time.
Here's what's most important: If you increase the amount of carbon pollution, the planet warms.
If we account for the cooling effect of sulphur aerosols from industrial pollution, greenhouse gases have already contributed 2 ℃ of global warming.
As such, anti-nuclear groups must continue to change their position on nuclear if they are to credibly claim they are concerned about air pollution and global warming.
He added that even if the EPA were forced to regulate greenhouse gases, it would target emissions from coal - fired power plants and then vehicles — which combined account for about half of the nation's global - warming pollution — before requiring smaller operations to apply for new emissions permits.
That means that if the pollution becomes too detrimental to human health and we stop that pollution, we will warm even faster.
Even if global warming was proven one day to be a complete fallacy, wouldn't conservation and reduced pollution still be a good thing?
If we are going to effectively reduce air pollution and address global warming, we need to shut down the oldest, dirtiest coal plants — and not build new ones to replace them.
If we're serious about putting the brakes on global warming, the question is not whether we should put a value on greenhouse gas pollution, but how we should do it.
However — if we consider the full cost of pollution and global warming, I think nuclear becomes cost effective again.
«If insurers were to properly reward consumers for less driving, that would not only lessen their auto insurance costs, but also reduce the number of uninsured motorists, accidents, air pollution and the impact on global warming,» notes.
As well as good Full HD wide angle camera with night vision, noise and motion detection, Canary also has air quality, humidity and a temperature sensor which, aside from telling you how warm the lounge is and if there's a pollution issue, can detect sudden temperature rises, which could be the start of a fire.