Sentences with phrase «what about the emissions»

Not exact matches

This was occurring just after VW received what amounted to a public warning about its emissions.

You might argue that there's more efficient ways to reduce CO2 emissions and you might be right... but I understood your theme to be about what was politically possible.

The contribution to national GHG emissions from electricity generation in Canada is about a third of what it is in the US.

But what about electric cars, which have no need for catalytic converters since they're emissions - free?

«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.»

California Vineyard Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Assessment of the Available Literature and Determination of Research Needs - A summary report of a literature review used to determine what was known about California vineyard GHG production and sequestration potential.

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

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.

According to Bill Hare, founder and CEO of Climate Analytics, which oversees the Climate Action Tracker to monitor countries» measures, all of the INDCs released so far, which account for about a third of global emissions, are in what he calls the «medium» ambition range.

But even though electronic emissions aren't an issue with TVs made any time after 1968 (including today's LCD and plasma flat screens), what about causing harm to one's vision?

Depending on what steps people took to restrict emissions, by the end of the century we could expect the planet's average temperature to rise anywhere between about 1.4 and 6 °C (2.5 — 11 °F).

Elon Musk's Tesla Motors has done much to make electric cars desirable: its head - turning Roadster revolutionised ideas about what an emissions - free vehicle might achieve.

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 INDC does not however go into detail about what these technical conditions are or why they are preventing the EU from planning to reduce land use emissions.

«We think there will be a paradigm shift as people re-evaluate what they had intuitively believed about particle pH and how it responds to emissions.»

But the emissions slash will not stem the tide: Global average temperatures would still rise by nearly 1º F, about what scientists attribute to date from industrial emissions since 1900.

But, what about the suggestion by Ramanathan and Feng (2008) that even if we go down to zero GHG emissions, we are committed to 2.4 C warming.

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.

CO2 growth rates (CEI, p. 11): arguments about what growth rates for CO2 emissions that some models use are besides the point of what the science says about the climate sensitivity of the earth system (emissions growth rates are if anything an economic question).

And finally, what about Mark's questions (# 3) and other factors not discussed here — do all these effects re Arctic ice lead scientists to believe there is a greater and / or earlier chance (assuming we continue increasing our GHG emissions — business as usual) of melting hydrates and permafrost releasing vast stores of methane into the atmosphere than scientists believed before the study, or is the assessment of this about the same, or scientists are not sure if this study indicates a greater / lesser / same chance of this?

«If we assume an optimistic scenario for greenhouse gas emissions — the RCP 2.6 scenario, [see Fact Box] which would result in a warming of about two degrees Celsius — then we can expect an increase in sea level similar to what we see in this video,» says climate modeller Martin Stendel from the Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen.

But what about tomorrow, when new mobility requirements and tougher emissions laws redefine the pleasure of driving and reassess the meaningfulness of performance?

«Compared to what the car industry has achieved — about 30 per cent reduction in CO2 since 2000 — the oil industry hasn't really played its part yet in reducing emissions.

Much has been written about what Volkswagen's emissions scandal will mean to the automaker and the owners of its cars.

Zero tailpipe emissions Until then, let's talk about what we do know about Ford's shot across the bow of the Nissan Leaf.

The concept is what BMW calls as the meeting of its xDrive and eDrive, describing it «the logical next step towards bringing about a radical reduction in fuel consumption and emissions».

When the new QX50 goes on sale, the combined fuel economy should be around 26 mpg, about what a diesel - powered vehicle of the same size would achieve, but without a lot of the emissions - system complexity.

** also featuring ** 18» ALLOY WHEELS ** ROCKFORD FOSGATE PREMIUM AUDIO SYSTEM ** BLUETOOTH HANDS FREE ** HEATED FRONT SEATS ** POWER DRIVER SEAT ** POWER NO HANDS LIFT GATE ** FUSE TELEMATICS w / VOICE COMMAND ** CD & MP3 PLAYERS / USB & AUX INPUTS ** HD RADIO / SATELLITE CAPABLE ** 1 TOUCH IGNITION START & STOP ** 50 STATE EMISSIONS ** STOP IN FOR A TEST DRIVE AND SEE WHY OUR CUSTOMERS ARE SOO LOYAL TO MITSUBISHI AND ESPECIALLY TO MARK MITSUBISHI PHOENIX ** HIGHEST CUSTOMER LOYALTY RATING IN THE NATION ** THINK WHAT IT MEANS TO YOUR CAR BUYING EXPERIENCE TO WORK WITH A DEALER WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THEM ** ESPECIALLY AFTER THE SALE!!

This is why it's good that Paul Krugman, among others, has pointed to the work of Martin Weitzman at Harvard, who's been making the point for awhile that the economic logic of action on emissions comes as much from what is not known about the worst - case risks as what is already established.

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.

Their narrow focus in itself is evidence that they don't know what they are talking about, but making the «Hockey Stick» results the poster boy for economic calamity if we do anything about GHG emissions is strange, is it not?

What they care about is that phony «skeptics» are telling lies in order to obstruct and delay action to reduce GHG emissions.

and lastly... this little gem from late 2016, which relates back to queries recently about the accuracy of GHG emissions FF use numbers, and what the future may hold (if funded properly).

I'm just talking about starting with steps that can build support for more aggressive actions on emissions by first illustrating and demonstrating what's possible on energy now.

In any case, if what really counts is the second half of the century, that makes the 7 vs 9 vs 20 debate somewhat marginal, since what matters most is what the wedges say about technological and infrastructure trends, not what they mean for emissions per se.

I often hear nuclear advocates proclaiming that «nuclear is THE solution to global warming» and that «no one can be serious about dealing with global warming if they don't support expanded use of nuclear power» but I have never heard any nuclear advocate lay out a plan showing how many nuclear power plants would have to be built in what period of time to have a significant impact on GHG emissions.

What about hydropower, which is billed as a sustainable form of electricity generation because it produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels?

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.

After that, emissions taper to zero — they must — CO2 concentrations go asymptotically to what corresponds to about half the total ever emitted — the other half going into the ocean and biosphere — and temps go asymptotically to the long - term equilibrium value for that concentration.

Put another way, even asking the question (unless a full answer is given) can leave a substantial number of people in the audience thinking, «yeh, what about that, what good will my actions do if Asia will be the main source of emissions?!»

Here's what it says: «For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

So what if they were more fuel efficient and kept the fleet fuel economy average down, reducing CO2 emissions; nobody, including the government, cares about that.

I asked Robert Socolow of Princeton, who is one of the authors of the paper on the super-polluters and a developer of the popular «wedges» approach to defining emissions goals, what he would say about the idea if he were in an elevator (in a tall building) with climate negotiators from the United States and China.

The two countries, the established and emerging dominant influences on the global greenhouse, are circling warily right now, trying to figure out what signals each can send to the other indicating seriousness about curbing heat - trapping emissions that would not raise political problems at home.

In this case, science does tell us what to do (reduce CO2 emissions: we can argue about the amount and rate but this argument should be along the lines: «do we reduce by 70 % or 90 % over current levels by 2050?).

Mark — What are your thoughts about the analysis by Ramanathan and Feng (PNAS, Sept 17,2008: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0803838105), in which they calculate the committed warming of cumulative emissions since the pre-industrial era as in the region of 2.4 °C (with a confidence interval of 1.4 °C to 4.3 °C), based on calculating the equilibrium temperature if GHG concentrations are held at 2005 levels into the future.

What the authors, I think, are talking about is the difference between new growth and biological emissions due to decay and forest fires.