Sentences with phrase «what about carbon emissions»

And what about carbon emissions from transport of huge bags of detergent?

Not exact matches

«Can I say to Australians the debate that they are hearing about a carbon tax is a debate about what Tony Abbott calls a carbon tax, which [it] will be for a limited period of time and then we will move to an emissions trading scheme.»

It also stirred confusion about the governor's legal authority and what will happen to the carbon trading program, which caps utility carbon dioxide emissions in 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, at a time when national climate legislation appears dead on Capitol Hill.

Fossil fuels cost a lot of money and [have] a lot of climate impact; that's something we haven't covered either, but this plan will also reduce carbon dioxide emissions to about a third of what they are now [by] 2050, assuming some level of growth as well.

The What We Know report further states that «according to the IPCC, given the current pathway for carbon emissions the high end of the «likely» range for the expected increase in global temperature is about 8 ˚ F by the end of the century.

If emissions dropped to zero immediately, the concentrations would start to fall, but relatively slowly (given what we know about the half - life of carbon in the atmosphere)-- i.e. over decades.

Updates below InsideClimate News, showing the value of focused and sustained investigative reporting, has published the first piece in an illuminating review of what Exxon Mobil Corp. (and its earlier incarnations) learned through its own research from the 1970s onward about the potential climate impacts of rising emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use.

To understand why India, despite its fast - growing emissions, has demanded and gotten what its environment minister called «carbon space,» just do a side by side comparison of the United States, where the average person's activities result in about 17 tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, and India, where 400 million people still lack an electric light or clean cooking fuel and where per capita annual emissions are 1.9 tons per person.

So what does your most recent research tell you about where China's carbon emissions could be headed, and how much they'll have to bend to give the world a chance of meeting the two - degree target?

Hales» pioneering research in ocean carbon chemistry underlies much of what we know about the role carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions plays in changing the chemistry of Northwest seas.

Regarding your question about who is responsible for the GHG emissions when coal is traded internationally, I'll share what I tell my students during our carbon trading simulation: «The carbon follows the money.»

I'd like to ask a general question: since the oceans are taking up about 1/3 of the anthropogenic carbon emissions, what is the opinion now of the scientific community about when the ocean surface layers will get saturated and this carbon sink (on relatively short timescales) will start to diminish?

Buyers of forest carbon offsets have sent a strong signal that, in addition to verified emissions reductions, they are interested in the community and biodiversity benefits of forest protection indeed, these «beyond carbon benefits are sometimes what interests them about offsetting in the first place.

«It's wonderful to have no carbon or CO2 emissions but you have to do that cost effectively and that's what this whole project is about.»

And he lays out the facts about Kyoto, carbon emissions and what governments and individuals might do, and have done.

There is no mention in the China Daily article about when CCICED thinks these reductions should commence, what the assumptions to GDP growth are till 2050, nor what levels of carbon emissions will result by 2050 if such measures were taken.

It took about one percent of the world economy to develop the modern infrastructure of clean water and indoor plumbing; that's roughly what will be required to get rid of «another kind of human waste» — carbon dioxide emissions from burning fuels.

He is passionate about what can be done to improve the state of our home energy efficiency and reduce our carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions from fossil fuel use might have increased global mean temperature by about one - sixth of one degree, so what's with all the fuss about carbon dioxide?

If Norway can't slash emissions almost two decades after slapping a hefty pricetag on carbon, what does that say about the belief that «making polluters pay» will automatically transform America's economy?

If they don't enact a stiff tax on carbon in 2021; and if they don't start using the full legal authority of the Clean Air Act to regulate all sources of carbon emissions — implementing what is in effect a carbon fuel rationing scheme — then they can be rightly accused of being totally dishonest and hypocritical in claiming to be concerned about the impacts of climate change.

The above illustration, following the assumptions about what equity requires made by the authors of the report about how to determine US emissions reductions obligations, leads to the conclusion not only does the United States need to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2020, the US must reduce its emissions by -141 % from 1990 levels by 2025.

Because of this, perhaps the most important immediate goal of climate change policy proponents is to help educate civil society and governments about the need to move urgently to make extremely rapid decreases in ghg emissions whereever governments can and to the maximum extent possible in light of the policy implications of limiting national ghg emissions to levels constrained by a carbon budget and in response to what fairness requires of nations..

Think about it — the issues in contest are two explanations — evolution by natural selection or divine creation, and what to teach to kids in public schools, not «is it worth it to «limit aggressively» carbon emissions right «now ``?»

Like any attempt to determine what a ghg national target should be, the above chart makes a few assumptions, including but not limited to, about what equity requires not only of the United States but of individual states, when global emissions will peak, and what the carbon emissions budget should be to avoid dangerous climate change.

Any entities identifying a ghg emissions reduction target must be expected to expressly identify their assumptions about what remaining carbon budget and justice and equity consideration were made in setting the target.

He wrote a well - reviewed book called «The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming,» in which he presents measured skepticism of climate - change orthodoxy — for example, he believes the role of carbon emissions from human industry is greatly exaggerated by politicized science, but he doesn't think human carbon emissions are irrelevant, and is not implacably hostile to the goal of reducing them.

That stubborn error in the satellite data is about six times larger than what is scientifically possible, and several times larger than the effect scientists are trying to see, namely planetary warming caused by continued massive emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

It also depends on what assumptions you make about how effective carbon - emissions control is; Lenton and Vaughan calculate all the forcings in terms of what extra relief the carbon - dioxide drawdown provides in a world that is already making serious cuts in emissions).

Now, I know what I said before — about voluntary carbon offsets being an enabling mechanism more than an incentive, and that's true, but one way they enable companies to reduce is to create an «internal price» on carbon — a price companies can use to push greenhouse - gas emissions into the corporate consciousness.

«What we are concerned about, and some of our research has shown, is if those dangers are presented in too catastrophic a way, on too large a scale, then people just distance themselves and are less likely to take actions to reduce their own carbon emissions.

The materials don't say what Bush will be speaking about, but in a room of coal industry executives and potential major Bush campaign funders, climate change and proposed cuts in carbon emissions are sure to dominate the conversation.

That's what two men named David thought, too, when they first met in 2008 to talk about a climate policy with very little support: a national tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

We do not know sufficient about the carbon cycle to determine what — if any — effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration would result from altering athropogenic CO2 emissions: even the IPCC admits that.

This past November, the USGCRP released a draft of an update to this strategic plan for public comment, in which the USGCRP specifically asked for input about what role it could play in coordinating research related to carbon removal — i.e. «negative emissions» — solutions.

But we need a global de facto cap on carbon emissions and as long as we stick to a nation - state system, a global agreement about which countries can emit what when.

Sure, tax cuts, grants and loans are fairly easy to account for, but what about military deployments to secure foreign oil supplies, or infrastructure costs like roads and transmission lines, or the seemingly endless stream of external costs linked to carbon emissions, toxic air and water pollutants, higher health care costs and missed work days?

We're at about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year — and notwithstanding the global economic slowdown, probably poised to rise 2 % per year (the exact future growth rate is quite hard to project because it depends so much on what China does and how quickly peak oil kicks in).

If emissions dropped to zero immediately, the concentrations would start to fall, but relatively slowly (given what we know about the half - life of carbon in the atmosphere)-- i.e. over decades.

Republicans are scared of carbon emission regulation because they are worried about what it will do to our extremely fragile economy.

This is a good faith discussion about what the available technology can achieve and the best way to successfully reduce these emissions balanced with efficiency and carbon (CO2) emissions.

She was in town this past week to speak at the 11th annual New York Fashion Conference and I stopped by Edelman's offices to speak with her about sustainable fashion, consumer trends towards reuse, eBay's carbon emission reduction goal, upcoming announcements in 2010, and more — click through for our discussion: TreeHugger: The Re + Purpose campaign just wrapped up, where the Green Team collaborated with green blogs to encourage consumers to find new value in existing products, what can we expect in 2010?

«Whilst there may be a scientific consensus about global warming — that it is happening and largely man - made — there is no similar agreement about what should be done to tackle it; whether money should be spent, for example, on cutting carbon emissions or would be better used adapting our defences to the changing climate.

The nation's aggregate carbon emissions now top Japan's, 45 % of the land is degraded, groundwater levels are dropping rapidly... Here are the details: India Now World's Fourth Largest Carbon Emitter India's per capita carbon emissions remain very low — about 1 / 20th of those in the United States and probably actually below what could be extended equitably to everyone on the planet — but multiply those by one billion - plus people and it really adds up.

Thus, for instance, resistance to climate science in the United States seems to be linked to a libertarian economic outlook: People who resist what experts tell them about global warming often appear, at heart, to be most worried about the consequences of increased government regulation of carbon emissions.

«When you have Japan, [South] Korea and China having discussions around a north Asian carbon club; when you've got China and Korea having discussions around how do we treat emissions across borders and what's the lowest cost to our economies to meet our emissions targets; when you have China and New Zealand having those conversations about establishing direct engagement because they both have a functioning carbon market with a price; those conversations and those emerging what's being called «carbon clubs» is something that Australia should be participating in,» he says.

Researchers (in an article republished on Croakey) answered readers» questions about the change, shedding light on what it would mean for household bills, tax benefits, and future of carbon emissions in our country.