Sentences with phrase «well known fossil fuel»

Not exact matches

As he prodded the prime minister, Nye, best known as the host of the 1990s PBS show «Bill Nye the Science Guy,» and more recently for the Netflix series «Bill Nye Saves the World,» cited a study by a group called The Solutions Project that concluded Canada could live entirely without fossil fuels if it fully embraced renewable energy sources.

This is according to the government's ambitious energy policy goals, which are driven by various well - known reasons: fossil fuels such as oil and gas are running out, becoming more and more expensive and are bad for the environment.

McKibben: Yeah, and there are you know these are kind of calculations that'll start to sort themselves out once you remove the sets of subsidies from fossil fuel and food and things; [we'll] begin to get a better sense.

Last week, students in Wisconsin and Michigan stepped up to such an opportunity when CFACT Campus, the student arm of a well - known cabal of fossil fuel apologists, hosted climate change denier Willie Soon at several campus events around the country.

What we know from reading the actual findings of this study, as well as several other analyses of the climate impacts of fossil fuel subsidy removal, is that nixing oil, gas, and coal subsidies would be a big win for the climate, would saves money, and could free up resources to help the poorest and most vulnerable.

By the sixties, it was well - established science that CO2 concentration is rising due to fossil fuel emissions, and in the nineties we certainly knew that the observed rise represents only 57 % of what we have emitted.

Take just one misunderstanding from your blog — we know the increase in CO2 is from fossil fuel use; that's been known for decades, and Spencer Weart among others explains it well in his book; the link's in the right sidebar.

All it demonstrates is that there is more than one causal factor, as is well known, with aerosols (from fossil fuels and volcanoes), land - use changes (through affecting CH$ and CO2 levels and albedo) and solar irradiance all playing a role.

However, it is also well - known that vested interests in fossil fuels have used their wealth and political connections to lock out competition from renewable energy.

All four organisations actively lobby against any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all four are well known for publishing disinformation concerning science in order to achieve this objective; and all four are funded by sections of the fossil fuel industry.

The extent of the atmos (and of the bit which CO2 is spread through) is very well known, as are fossil fuel emissions — William]

Given the very well established history of lying by omission in fossil fuel industry propaganda, did they just pick three bodies out of about 60 or so that happened to have some record of warming, no matter how flimsy that warming record is?

The appropriate response, without knowing more, other things being equal, would be to stop that right now, but I don't suppose that you proose closing down all fossil fuel emissions until the science is better understood.

Until indirect land use change is fully taken into account, Europe will continue to subsidise an alternative energy that is no better than the fossil fuels it is designed to replace.»

The op - ed last Friday first garnered attention because it was signed by 16 scientists, however other journalists have shown that most of these signatories are not climatologists (the list includes an astronaut, a physician, and an airplane engineer), many are well - known deniers, and at least six have been tied to the fossil fuels industry.

Less well known is the immense potential of soils to act as vast carbon sinks, with the ability to «naturally turn over about 10 times more greenhouse gas on a global scale than the burning of fossil fuels.»

As the western world depends on there continuing to be a good supply of fossil fuels from the Middle East and other parts of the developing world, there will always be a necessity to plan for all eventualities in this area (NOTE — I know the US purchases relatively little of its oil from the ME, but if this was not available there would be more competition for supplies from other sources).

Perhaps he really doesn't know better (although a man in his position certainly ought to know better), and has just repeated what he saw on a fossil - fuel funded denial group's website, or heard at an ALEC conference.

Here's a story we all now know well: A small number of groups backed by the fossil fuel industry have for decades shed doubt on the science of climate change, even as the actual scientific community consensus on the issue — that greenhouse gas pollution posed a significant threat to our climate — remained strong and continued to grow stronger.

You know full well that the subsidy for fossil fuels you are quoting is not for electricity generation.

For example, fossil fuels may have been used to supply power to the phone factory and then to transport the phone to the retailer and then if I drove out to the mall to buy it... well as you can imagine calculating the carbon footprint of an action can be challenging, but just being able to make informed decisions when choosing one activity over another is what's really important.For example, I knew that sending a text message would be greener than driving across town to share my news.

Contrary to what Peter Taylor says in his book, it is well known that sulphate aerosols created in the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion were a major influence on the small cooling trend from 1940, although uncertainties remain over the scale of the effect.

There have been several studies of this strategy, and the ones I've seen show the world blowing well past 2 - or 3 - degree - C temperature increases, unless the major energy companies leave most of their currently known fossil fuel reserves in the ground along with any new discoveries.

... «When you hear a phrase like he said, «the highest ever,» you know, «off the charts,» «record setting,» that's a good sign that on top of a whatever local weather patterns there are or regional like El Nino, global warming, fossil fuel driven climate change is putting its finger on the scale and juicing the atmosphere and causing the even bigger weather event than you would have otherwise seen.»

No matter what assumptions we enter, it is clear that we are far better off to get nuclear at least cost — as long as it will give us better total health effects than we have now., which clearly replacement of fossil fuels with nuclear will do.

In that post you seem to lose track of the main point of the thread: if the goal is to rapidly replace fossil fuel use with CO2 - free generating technology that is known to work reliably at known costs, then a strong nuclear program is the best option.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

And that is important, because carbon and other emissions from burning fossil fuels impose heavy costs on us all — as B.C. knows well.

Because the earth (mother earth, or Gaia, to all you tree hugger freaks) knows what we want, and what is best for us, and what is best is our nice Goldilocks climate that supports the inviolate and constitutionally protected right to cheap, atmosphere changing fossil fuels even though said usage essentially reverses 10s of millions of years of earth lower atmosphere affecting energy balances within a mere speck of time) and not you eco fools who want to harm the poor (something climate change would never do, bill gates and the world's leading scientists and thinkers and economists are fools to even think it — climate change will affect the wealthy) just to give the even more power over our individual lives.

Jacobson says these things even though he knows perfectly well that everywhere in the world nuclear plants are closed, fossil fuels are burned instead.

It's well known that sulfate particles, formed as a by - product of fossil fuel burning (primarily coal and oil), make for a good source of CCN.

While carbon accumulation in the atmosphere and carbon emissions from fossil fuels are well measured, most global carbon numbers are not known with a high degree of certainty, so even the size of the missing sink has long been a fairly open question.

Regulators and the fossil fuel industry say offshore fracking operations have a good safety record and tend to be smaller in size compared to onshore operations, but environmentalists continue to worry about the chemicals used in the process because many of them are known to harm marine wildlife.

Here's a story we all now know well: A small number of groups backed by the fossil fuel industry...

«As a wind power engineer and a published author, he literally wrote the book on the need to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, and he knows that this is the best way to stop our oceans from acidifying.»

But my point is other than being a likely candidate for lucrative employment of certain individuals or groups that seek to sustain the eminence of the fossil fuel industry, you, a «modest» technician with a two year degree (honestly nothing wrong with that) purport to know more and better than many folks with PhDs.

The arrow labelled fossil fuel burning denotes the effect of the combustion of fossil fuels (Marland et al., 2000; British Petroleum, 2000) based on the relatively well known O2: CO2 stoichiometric relation of the different fuel types (Keeling, 1988).

You know for most of the world's people, life has gotten a lot better since 1970 and a lot of that is due to the exploitation of fossil fuels.

Moreover, the Rose Garden speech President Bush delivered that day removed any doubt that the new Bush - Cheney White House had already begun to spin the big lie about climate change, the lie we know so well we can recite it in our sleep: scientific uncertainties regarding global climate change are too great to make any policy decisions, especially those that might affect the US economy (read: the US fossil fuel - based energy economy).

No matter how well informed you are, no matter how many peer - reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no wherNo matter how well informed you are, no matter how many peer - reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no wherno matter how many peer - reviewed studies you cite, or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use, you will get no wherno where.

We can both recognize the critical role fossil fuels have played in the development of society as we know it, and recognize that now we know better and it is time to move on.

Well no because the object of the game isn't to save gas fossil fuels, but create green electricity credits, which is why the froggy won't come back if you don't like the shower head or globes afterwards.

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.

A leaked email chain reported earlier this week on DeSmog shines a harsh light on the behind - the - scenes coordination between well - known climate deniers and fossil fuel funded spindoctors.

A better question, however, would be to ask exactly how the questioners came to know the detailed information about the skeptics» associations with anything related to the fossil fuel industry.

Restating his well - known championship of nuclear power, Hansen says using fossil fuels is very dangerous by comparison with nuclear power plants.

API is well known for their 1998 memo outlining the fossil fuel industry's plan to confuse and mislead the public about climate science.

No Long - Term Up - Side The grim reality about fracking, pipelines, and fossil fuels generally is that, at best, we do not know what all of the negative consequences of their ongoing, large - scale use will be.

Nuclear fission, as you all know better than I, as a long term alternative to fossil fuels, depends on development and wide use of nuclear breeder reactors with concomitant problems of proliferation of atomic weapons materials.

The expedition started from the well - established fact that an enormous amount of methane is frozen into a kind of ice known as methane hydrate, buried in seafloor sediments and containing perhaps twice as much carbon as all the world's fossil - fuel reserves combined.