Sentences with phrase «who use less energy»

Sound design of the revenue side of carbon tax legislation will also ensure that people of limited means, who use less energy than average, are made better off, not worse.

Find a way of ensuring consumers who use less energy don't contribute disproportionately to the costs of decarbonisation policies.

Not exact matches

(Hanna Tuomisto, who in 2011 conducted a study at Oxford University's Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, found that growing meats in - vitro would use 35 % to 60 % less energy, emit 80 % to 95 % less greenhouse gas and use around 98 % less land than conventionally produced animal meat.)

In the less developed countries, approximately 400 pounds of grain per year is available to the average person, nearly all of which must be consumed directly merely to meet minimal food energy needs... Contrast this example to the average North American who uses nearly a ton of grain per year.

The lower levels of baseline sugar sweetened drink consumption in the UK compared with the US may in part explain why the effect on obesity that we estimate in the UK is much less than that estimated in the US.12 The differences with respect to other modelling studies may also be partly explained by their use of higher own price elasticity values for sugar sweetened drinks than we have calculated and used here.18 22 52 We can not make direct comparisons between the results of our study and the results of recent studies of the effect of reducing sugar sweetened drink consumption on body weight in children, 5 7 as the relation between energy balance and change in body mass index in children who are growing is different from that in adults.

GWE Anaerobic technology plants can typically pay back the cost of their introduction within two years or even less — and then go on working 24/7, virtually in perpetuity, to provide biogas for their owners, who can use the energy for their own purposes, he says.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Ozil has been awesome this season, but to be fair it took him a while to become accustomed to playing in the Premier League (although some may say that Wenger played him out of position and didn't make the best use of his talents) while Alexis (who has been here one season less) made an immediate impact and seems to galvanize the team to utilize extra reserves of energy in every game.

Suddenly life will become less stressful, as you let your child be who he is — able to run around and use up his energy in constructive ways rather than having to sit still for long periods.

less than or equal to lamivudine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Antiretroviral therapy, usually means 1 - 2 drugs, used in early studies Antiretroviral zidovudine (also known as ZDV) Breastfeeding Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative Breastfeeding and HIV International Transmission Study Combined antiretroviral therapy Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Deoxyribonucleic Acid Exclusive Breastfeeding Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay Food and Agrigulture Organization Fixed dose combination ART, e.g., lamividine, stavudine, and nevirapine Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy, 3 or more drugs for more effective treatment used in later studies Human Immunodeficiency virus International Atomic Energy Agency Infant feeding Infant and young child feeding Lopinavir cubic millimetre Mother - to - Child Transmission of HIV Non-governmental organization Nevirapine Polymerase Chain Reaction People Living with HIV Prevention of Mother - to - Child Transmission Replacement Feeding Ritonavir Ribonucleic acid, one of the three major macromolecules (along with DNA and proteins) that are essential for all known forms of life single dose NVP United Nations Agencies Joint United Nations Programme on HIV / AIDS United Nations Population Fund United Nations Commissioner for Refugees United Nations Children's Fund U.S. Agency for International Development World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action United Nations World Food Programme World Health Assembly WHO 2010 Guidelines on HIV and infant feeding World Health Organization Zidovudine (same drug as AZT)

When a woman breastfeeds she is so efficient in energy use and nutrient uptake that her bone density increases, hence women who have breastfed have less risk of osteoporosis.

Finally, it is also often used by athletes, body builders and by those who are dieting because it contains less calories than other oils and its fat content is easily converted to energy.

Adhering to these traditional concepts the US Department of Agriculture has concluded that diets, which reduce calories, will result in effective weight loss independent of the macronutrient composition, which is considered less important, even irrelevant.14 In contrast with these views, the majority of ad - libitum studies demonstrate that subjects who follow a low - carbohydrate diet lose more weight during the first 3 — 6 months compared with those who follow balanced diets.15, 16, 17 One hypothesis is that the use of energy from proteins in VLCKD is an «expensive» process for the body and so can lead to a «waste of calories», and therefore increased weight loss compared with other «less - expensive» diets.13, 18, 19 The average human body requires 60 — 65 g of glucose per day, and during the first phase of a diet very low in carbohydrates this is partially (16 %) obtained from glycerol, with the major part derived via gluconeogenesis from proteins of either dietary or tissue origin.12 The energy cost of gluconeogenesis has been confirmed in several studies7 and it has been calculated at ∼ 400 — 600 Kcal / day (due to both endogenous and food source proteins.18 Despite this, there is no direct experimental evidence to support this intriguing hypothesis; on the contrary, a recent study reported that there were no changes in resting energy expenditure after a VLCKD.20 A simpler, perhaps more likely, explanation for improved weight loss is a possible appetite - suppressant action of ketosis.

You mean someone who weighs 160 lbs and runs a mile uses less energy than someone who weighs 250 lbs and runs a mile?

These devices» screens use much less energy, and many people find them easier to read, so there will be folks who will be viewing your beautiful, fully saturated snapshot as if it were being displayed on a 1984 Macintosh.

Using videos to meet your readers takes far less time and energy as you can meet with all of them at once, provide 3 different sessions to meet more peoples availability, and offer the replay free online for those who can't make it.

Base and Energy commodities are less volatile as compared to precious metals (Gold and Silver) and also the margin requirement is less, so traders who want to earn maximum out of base metals and energy price movement use this pack for generating maximum reEnergy commodities are less volatile as compared to precious metals (Gold and Silver) and also the margin requirement is less, so traders who want to earn maximum out of base metals and energy price movement use this pack for generating maximum reenergy price movement use this pack for generating maximum returns.

For example, 50 percent of the available energy is used by less than a billion people, whereas its negative impacts on the environmental affect three billion people who do not have access to it.

Agnes (# 1) says --(Who knew, that a squiggly little light bulb using less energy would be the demise of the incandescent bulb.

In other words, someone who acquires a house that uses 80 % less energy than other houses suddenly has more disposable income, and is therefore likely to buy more stuff or go on more vacations.

In this case, individuals and firms who reduce their energy use or switch to renewable energy will see less of an increase or no increase at all.

Over time, this continually rising price provides an incentive for people and businesses to use less and find alternatives: Anyone who can lower their fuel usage and / or energy consumption, pays less tax.

For the minority who use common sense, very little data is necessary to know that a «low carbon» economy is far less efficient than an economy run on fossil fuel energy [coal, preferably, because it is the least expensive power].

The CIC is not saving the world, as it claims; it is rather primarily lining its own pockets at the expense of everyone else, particularly the less well off who want to increase their income and living standards through the use of the lowest cost energy available, which is often fossil fuels.

To those who don't believe CO2 is a problem, it's still a good idea — more efficient use of energy means less reliance on the Middle East, less push to mine coal...

Those who ride bikes or use renewable energy sources would need less credits, and could sell their spare points to a central carbon bank.

No less by the very people (climate scientists included) who hide behind their claims they accept the science of climate change and the urgent need for immediate actions which must include changes to Laws and Regulations directly related to energy production and use.

Talk in some detail about food, housing, heating, clothing, transportation, and how the vast majority of our 7 billion who live in cities are going to survive on less than 10 % of current energy use.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson — who testified about the partnership before Congress — said the idea is that these goals would wind up emphasizing developments that use less land and energy, provide affordable housing to people of all income and stages of life, make it easier for people to get to their destinations on foot, bike or public transit and direct growth to developed areas.