Sentences with phrase «what emission goals»

So the 2 °C limit does in fact very much tell us what emission goals and budgets we must abide by.

Not exact matches

British - based research group InfluenceMap said an emissions cut of 70 percent would have been much closer to what is needed if shipping is to be in line with the goals of the Paris agreement.

Prior to 2007 scientists weren't sure what emissions reduction goal to shoot for, but new evidence led researchers to reach consensus on 350 ppm if we wished to have a planet, in the words of NASA climatologist James Hansen, «similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.»

Canadian officials say their small decrease in carbon emissions is short of what's needed to meet the country's Paris climate agreement goals.

In Stefan's words: «Once an overall long - term goal has been defined, it is a matter of science to determine what emissions trajectories are compatible...» By separating the decision on «long - term» goal from the «matter of science» to turn the crank and determine trajectories misunderstands how real goals function in nearly every area of complex and expensive policy coordination.

What's really meant in a comment like «if one's goal is to limit climate change, one would always be better off spending the money on immediate reduction of CO2 emissions» is «if one's goal is limiting LONG - TERM climate change».

But deep divisions persisted over how to set a long - term global goal for cutting emissions and what to expect from individual countries in charting their own paths toward achieving such a goal later in the century.

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 report confirms what I have said many times, negative emissions technologies like forests, carbon friendly agriculture, beccs etc are slow to scale up, and land areas are limited, etcetera, and so will have limited impact on the 50 year Paris goals.

Of course, if you're serious about stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, achieving the American goal in 2020 is just step one in what would have to be a centurylong 12 - step (or more) program to completely decouple global energy use from processes that generate heat - trapping emissions.

To come anywhere near achieving Mr. Obama's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to 80 percent below where they were in 1990 would require huge leaps in technology along with deploying what's available now, he said.

But what the meetings did not do is just as important: • Governments could not agree on a quantifiable goal for long - term emissions reductions.

Or when the so called climate «leaders» in Europe have also failed to grapple with what their responsibility entails and currently have the position that they will NOT reduce emissions between now and 2020 (they are already at their 2020 goal)??

What will prove to be more pressing at the Cancun climate change talks, therefore, will not be agreeing on an end goal, but on coming to a consensus on how to move forward at all, with ensuring nations make some sort of deal on cutting emissions from airplanes and shipping among the top priorities in the days ahead.

* Update Nov 28: additional commentary below by Yu Qingtai on issue of «measurable, reportable and verifiable» * Update Nov 29: Rough calculations on what the goal means for total emissions by 2020.

Leading companies elevate their climate goals in response to science September 25, 2015: More and more companies are setting ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets that align with what the latest climate science says is necessary to limit warming to below 2 °C and avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change.

Jim D, the Obama Administration's Climate Action Plan, of which the Clean Power Plan is one part, is not in any way indicative of what a truly aggressive approach to reducing America's carbon emissions should look like, if the goal is to reduce America's GHG emissions to the extent that the Progressive Left believes is necessary.

EnergyVision 2030 analyzes these questions by taking a comprehensive look at where efforts to expand clean energy resources can lead, how consumer adoption and market penetration rates can grow, and what increases in clean energy efforts are needed to attain state and regional emissions goals.

If your goal was to reduce CO2 emissions in the US - what specifically would you do?

And in fact when you look at the scientific literature, it's an interesting disconnect because the modelers who study emissions and how to control those emissions are generally much more comfortable setting goals in terms of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations because that comes more or less directly out of their models and is much more proximate or more closely connected to what humans actually do to screw up the climate in the first place, which is emit these greenhouse gases.

Mahindra's challenge is the first of what will be multiple «Summit Challenges» that aim to accelerate greenhouse gas reductions at a rate that will ensure worldwide emissions start trending downward no later than 2020 — a goal that must be met to prevent dangerous temperature rise.

The broad outlines of what is needed to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement are well known: the world must reach net - zero emissions soon after 2050 to keep the rise in temperature to 2C or less.

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..

Catalyze immediate, urgent and drastic emission reductions: «In line with what science and equity require, deliver urgent short - term actions, building towards a long - term goal that is agreed in Paris, that shift us away from dirty energy, marking the beginning of the end of fossil fuels globally, and that keep the global temperature goal in reach.»

How much of a problem is delayed participation by developing countries in terms of raising the overall burden of global mitigation costs, and what does this imply for appropriate near - term emissions pricing goals for the United States, if eventual targets for global stabilization are still to be met?

Here, I am noting what is conspicuously absent — the global goal to reduce global emissions by 50 percent by 2050.

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.

A recent report by CDP in partnership with We Mean Business revealed that the large majority of companies already have targets in place to reduce their carbon emissions, but that current business plans fall short of what is needed for business to deliver on the world's new low - carbon goals.

A recent report by CDP in partnership with We Mean Business found that although the large majority of companies have set targets to reduce emissions, in many cases the level of ambition and time horizon fall short of what is needed for business to deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The European Union's current goal of 40 % emission cuts by 2030 is at the low end of what climate science predicts will lead to global warming of 2 - 2.4 °C.

Chief among the early critics of the G - 8 effort was IPCC chairman Pachauri, who praised the «aspirational goal» on temperature but criticized the G - 8 for not spelling out what sorts of specific, deep cuts in emissions member countries were willing to take.

«What gets obfuscated is the goal of uncovering the warming due to persistent greenhouse forcing [by human emissions],» Karl says.

Of course all this also ignores whether reducing CO2 emissions is even a worthy goal, but that is not what the discussion has mostly been about.

Brad Plumer: In the draft version of the Clean Power Plan, each state has its own individual goal for emissions reductions, based on what EPA thinks is possible given the prospects for coal - to - gas switching, renewables, efficiency.

New York State energy planning based on the Reforming the Energy Vision goal to change the energy system of New York to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 80 % from 1990 levels by 2050 is trying to choose between many expensive policy options like pricing carbon in the electric sector while at the same time attempting to understand which one (or what mix) will be the least expensive and have the fewest negative impacts on the existing system.

What started out as an ambitious, global scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — a concept known as «Contraction and Convergence,» whose goal was to equalize per capita emissions around the world by requiring developed nations to cut down on

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?

Carnegie Mellon University researchers are asking companies to do what is only absolutely reasonable in the face of a big global goal of reducing emissions - broaden the terms on which they calculate carbon emissions.

When the regulations take effect in 2011 this is what will be mandated: The goal of all this is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from California's transportation fuels by 10 % by 2020 — a reduction of about 16 million tonnes.

Incorporating the price of carbon into that of goods and services is a serious economic structural reform, but when the goal is reducing emissions a fraction of what will be required to prevent the worst of global warming I am decidedly underwhelmed.