Sentences with phrase «what on emissions of greenhouse gases»

Not exact matches

Thanks to our nuclear power plants, greenhouse gas emissions from New York's electric generating plants are just one fourth (per capita) of what is produced on average across the U. S.

That is exactly the opposite of what it will take to make serious progress on slowing greenhouse gas emissions.

The application of hybrid powertrains and renewable fuels on diesel platforms will further reduce the vehicles» greenhouse gas emissions and could breathe still more life into what was a very hazy U.S. industry not long ago.

What would it mean to apply in our daily lives, just for argument, the kind of reductions called for in the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse - gas emissions?

Although there was disagreement on exactly what should be done, there appeared to be a consensus that action should be taken to avert a 2 - degree Celsius (3.6 - degree Fahrenheit) rise in average global temperatures and to cut emissions of greenhouse gases in half by 2050.

As average U.S. temperatures warm between 3 °F and more than 9 °F by the end of the century, depending on how greenhouse gas emissions are curtailed or not in the coming years, the waves of extreme heat the country is likely to experience could bend and buckle rails into what experts call «sun kinks.»

What's more, cleaning up emissions of some of these other greenhouse gases may prove quite a lot simpler than cutting back on CO2 — forestalling catastrophic climate change.

Chinese leaders have resisted binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and a major issue ahead of the talks is what steps developing countries with rising emissions would agree to take under the treaty.

Agriculture is responsible for 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and one - third of the world's freshwater goes to livestock production, so it's worth investigating what exactly is on your plate and what it took to get it there.

The gap between pledges and what scientists say would be needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions even as the global energy thirst crests in coming decades prompted Roberts to write of «Whispering Fire on a Crowded Planet.»

Andy Revkin wrote» Overall, inertia, both in Washington and elsewhere, still dominates even as the need to embark on an intensive, sustained, global effort to boost energy efficiency, curb greenhouse - gas emissions, and advance promising non-polluting energy technologies (no matter what you think of climate dangers) has grown ever clearer.

After hearing the speeches, and knowing what you do about the trajectory of emissions here and overseas, what's your personal sense of the likelihood the world will see a price on greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to shift choices in energy sources or technologies?

The New York Times» Andy Revkin has been one of the few reporters writing on global warming to point out what every serious energy expert in the U.S. has long known: new regulations alone won't do nearly enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When talking to the media, some have been tempted to push beyond what the science supports — focusing on the high end of projections of global temperatures in 2100 or highlighting the scarier scenarios for emissions of greenhouse gases.

Steve Stockman, a former Congressman from Texas, put blinders over his eyes and pulled out a dollar bill as a way of deriding what was happening down the road at the Bella Center, where delegates are busy trying to find agreement on cuts to global greenhouse gas emissions and a treaty to combat climate change.

Rising Tide has had a lot of fun with entrepreneurs involved in trading credits earned by cutting greenhouse - gas emissions, recently sending «greenwash guerillas» to root out what it called «carbon traitors» at a conference on carbon trading.]

Some 98 percent of working climate scientists agree that the atmosphere is already warming in response to human greenhouse - gas emissions, and the most recent research suggests that we are on a path toward what were once considered «worst case» scenarios.

NEW DELHI: In what may be a strong signal to rich nations on the issue of climate change, New Delhi on Tuesday said the developing countries, including India, have a «right to grow» and in the process their «net emission (of greenhouse gases) may increase».

Under Trump, the gap between what was promised and what will be achieved has widened as the federal government seeks to revoke the US Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, to roll back limits on the emission of the potent greenhouse gas methane and to reverse energy - efficiency policies.

In what may be a strong signal to rich nations on the issue of climate change, New Delhi on Tuesday said the developing countries, including India, have a «right to grow» and in the process their «net emission (of greenhouse gases) may increase».

If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said.

The two most important countries in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — China and the United States — apparently engaged in a war of words on the fundamental question of who should do what.

The aim in limiting greenhouse gas emissions should be to keep Earth's climate as close as possible to what it has been during the Holocene, say the study authors, adding that doing so depends on the cumulative amount of emissions released into the atmosphere throughout the industrial period, not just those emitted today.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Much of what one often hears about greenhouse gas emissions from dams being minimal is based on the world's existing dams with measurements of emissions.

The plaintiffs, once again as they are in some of these other climate change cases are seeking some pretty sweeping, both declarations of their rights under the Constitution and how those rights are being infringed by both what the state of Alaska is doing and not doing, but they're also asking for a science - based plan of attack or a plan of how to deal with climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on what the science requires and that's something on the order of eight percent per year reduction in emissions plus an accounting of the emissions that the state is responsible for, and how fast they're being reduced.

Though it's not economically, socially, or politically reasonable to stop all or almost all of global greenhouse gas emissions immediately as we did with CFCs, we can still improve on what we are already doing to combat the degradation of the earth.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Because allocation of national ghg emissions is inherently a matter of justice, nations should be required to explain how their ghg emissions reduction commitments both will lead to a specific atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration that is not dangerous, that is, what remaining ghg CO2 equivalent budget they have assumed that their commitment will achieve, and on what equitable basis have they determined their fair share of that budget.

Recently I asked some authorities on climate change: «what is the most effective way of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions?»

Although there are many countries other than the United States that have frequently failed to respond to what justice would require of them to reduce the threat of climate change, the United States, perhaps more than any other country, has gained a reputation in the international community for its consistent unwillingness to commit to serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions during the over two decades that world has been seeking a global agreement on how to respond to climate change.

The US apparent unwillingness to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions beyond what it is already on track to achieve is of considerable controversy in the Qatar negotiations this week because of the growing scientific concern about the potential inevitability of catastrophic warming caused by human activities.

If nations fail to base their climate change policies on what equity, ethics, and justice require of them on mitigation of their greenhouse gas emissions and funding for adaptation, losses, and damages, then the global response to climate change will not likely be ambitious enough to avoid catastrophic climate impacts while deepening existing injustices in the world.

As we shall see, these countries, among others, have continued to negotiate as if: (a) they only need to commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emission if other nations commit to do so, in other words that their national interests limit their international obligations, (b) any emissions reductions commitments can be determined and calculated without regard to what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, (c) large emitting nations have no duty to compensate people or nations that are vulnerable to climate change for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would - be «radiative imbalance»; the «blanket» effect of CO2 or CH4 «greenhouse gases» is not seen.

Ben Cook: Our results suggest that after 2050, if we continue on our current course of greenhouse gas emission, the likelihood of Western North America experiencing what we call a megadrought — a drought that lasts 35 years or longer — is very likely above 80 percent.

What will be the impact on Australia if we introduce a an emissions permit system ahead of our trading partners and the worlds major sources of greenhouse gasses?

What I object to is the alarmist rhetoric that attempts to scare people based on flimsy or no evidence, usually with the intent of having governments implement coercive measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Every province across the country, with the exception of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have signed on and this is important because national buy - in will be what promotes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

In its 2007 Climate Change Synthesis Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared that year's Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, projected temperature increases in the 21st Century of from 2 to 6 °C (4 to 11 °F) if no action is taken beyond what little has already been taken to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

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.

For even if the models are proven to be wrong with respect to their predictions of atmospheric warming, extreme weather, glacial melt, sea level rise, or any other attendant catastrophe, those who seek to regulate and reduce CO2 emissions have a fall - back position, claiming that no matter what happens to the climate, the nations of the Earth must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because of projected direct negative impacts on marine organisms via ocean acidification.

If the major emitters of greenhouse gases find it hard to agree on setting caps on emissions now, what makes you think the world can agree to injecting aerosols in the stratosphere as a solution?

More On Landfills University of New Hampshire is First School in US to Run Off Landfill Gas Green Eyes On: What Really Happens in a Landfill South Dakota Ethanol Plant Now Powered by Landfill Gas Phytocapping To Rehabilitate Landfills, Reduce Greenhouse Emissions Landfill Island?

What's mapped are notably large greenhouse gas emissions from things that venture capitalists couldn't or won't get hold of: university hospitals, power generation plants, and so on.

This broad risk category includes matters such as: how climate change affects the company's profitability, what opportunities / challenges climate change presents to the company, and what actions the company is taking in anticipation of the various climate change related regulations coming down the pipe (e.g. the anticipated mandatory cap - and - trade system on greenhouse gas emissions).