The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its authority to regulate global
warming pollution went through its first shakedown today before the Koch Industries and ExxonMobil funded [pdf] House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Energy and Power Subcommittee.
Not exact matches
Without any action, the world is on track to achieve at least 4 degrees C
warming of global average temperatures by 2100, as the world hits 450 parts - per - million of greenhouse gases in 2030 and
goes on to put out enough greenhouse gas
pollution to achieve as much as 1300 ppm by 2100.
It's
going to take cutting out most further greenhouse gas
pollution to restrain further global
warming.
So even without concerns about the
warming effect of carbon
pollution in Earth's atmosphere, the Paris agreement
goes a long way toward reducing harmful air
pollution worldwide.
«He let the moment
go by without making any change in his dogged refusal to put real limits on America's global
warming pollution,» says David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York - based environmental group.
«They can
go to the store and make a statement» against
pollution and global
warming.
A new study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Jacobson has revealed that worsening air
pollution and higher carbon dioxide emissions
go hand - in - hand - the results suggest intensifying global
warming will increase the number of smog - related deaths.
I honestly think she's too young to be listening to me
going on and on about such confusing stuff as oil, gas, coal, greenhouse effect, global
warming, manmade climate change, population explosion (she knows about it), deforestation, desertification, rapid extinction of other species,
pollution, problems, overconsumption, overindustrialization, problems, politics, economics, consumerism, and problems, religion, war, etc., etc., etc..
This is forward
going action for getting control of global
warming by stopping unneeded GHG emissions increasing the overload of carbon dioxide on the globe while also getting control of water
pollution.
He
went to great effort to say he honored the scientists work, but then flatly said that though the Arctic is in meltdown and its worse than models predict, that we can not make a causal link to human global
warming pollution can not he said things like «I wish this decision could have been otherwise» and talked about colleagues saying they were glad they weren't in his shoes.
How did the Toronto Star manage, within a period of 66 days, to
go from telling us our very survival was at stake due to global
warming to arguing that, well, fighting
pollution is a good idea?
Has it
gone down because of global
warming or
pollution?
Candidates were asked which of these phrases - «acid rain», «global
warming», «noise
pollution», «radioactive waste» —
went into these sentences: 1.
The answer: idling for longer than 10 seconds consumes more fuel and produces more global
warming pollution than stopping and restarting, so you're better off
going inside the restaurant.
If it is not
going to happen with global
warming or
pollution, it WILL happen through other means.
«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.
Whenever the models will get higher resolution, they may calculate or catch up what we are measuring every day, mean time we can clearly see (6 billion of us) that we are responsible for this
warming, and that it is likely
going faster, in direct proportionality with humanities world wide economic output driven by growth, and sadly of course its by - product,
pollution.
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.