Other countries, such as Germany, have shown that it is possible to have economic growth and energy security
while phasing out fossil fuels.
Not exact matches
Scientists need to explain to the public that
while they continue to study the details of anthropogentic global warming and consequent climate change, that we already know enough to be certain that continued unmitigated warming will be a disaster for all humanity, and that we urgently need to
phase out all
fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.
It's interesting that you keep pushing geoengineering
while at the same time disparaging, rejecting, ignoring and otherwise expressing extreme negativity towards the multiple, readily implementable plans that have been put forward by multiple independent organizations and academic researchers, as well as government agencies, for rapidly
phasing out CO2 emissions from
fossil fuels using benign technologies that we have at hand now.
While the climate situation is far worse than most people think, the options for quickly
phasing out fossil fuel and nuclear energy and replacing them with clean renewable energy sources are much better than most people think.
Maintaining the momentum, and not forgetting where we started
out, we rejoined with our Divest London friends at the beginning of 2016 with a sea - shanty / flooding themed event at City Hall, and celebrated a short
while later when all four leading candidates for Mayor of London committed to work to
phase out London - wide
fossil fuel investments.
While overall spending on climate - related activities is higher than on
fossil fuels, there is still a lack of progress in
phasing out fossil fuel investments and increasing climate finance.
Yet as Hansen notes, if the world began to
phase out of
fossil fuel in 2005 the rate of reductions needed would only be 3.5 %
while waiting until 2020 will require a 15 % reduction per year.
Phasing out fossil fuels in 50 - 100 years
while continuing or even accelerating the decrease in energy prices is possible and makes an enormous impact -LSB-...]
It is difficult to see how developing, transporting, and refining the tar sands would be anywhere near the most economical (let alone environmentally acceptable) option for burning a strictly limited quantity of
fossil fuel while expediting a
phase -
out.
Scientists need to explain to the public that
while they continue to study the details of anthropogentic global warming and consequent climate change, that we already know enough to be certain that continued unmitigated warming will be a disaster for all humanity, and that we urgently need to
phase out all
fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.
What's worse, by clinging to growth, we'll continue to give short - shrift to transformative solutions such as localizing our economies and
phasing out fossil fuels from our food, water, energy, transportation, housing, and health systems — moves that will only remain viable
while we still have the resources to invest in them.
In November 2015, the leaders of Asia - Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) economies, reaffirmed their landmark 2009 commitment to «rationalize and
phase out over the medium term inefficient
fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption
while recognizing the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services».
New Zealand claim a top spot for rather hilariously, or not, urging countries to
phase out fossil fuel subsidies
while shelling
out big bucks to prop up
fossil fuel production to the tune of $ 80 million.
While more than 53 countries now have publicly committed to
phase -
out subsidies for
fossil fuels, little concrete progress has been made.
Phasing Out Subsidies Considered For A
While Addressing the market - distorting and environmentally detrimental effect of
fossil fuel subsidies has been on the table for some time.