Sentences with phrase «worse than fossil fuels»

This decision reacts to evidence showing the climate impact of some biofuels could be worse than fossil fuels.

Would you care to enlighten me why uranium use is worse than fossil fuels?

Not exact matches

Think of it as a homeowner who borrows based on the inflated value of a home: When this «carbon bubble» bursts — for example, when governments finally enact policies to restrict or penalize the burning of carbon — the devaluation of fossil fuel reserves may be even worse than the housing bubble that sent shock waves down Wall Street five years ago.

In the worst - case scenario, more carbon could be released from the bogs and permafrost in northern areas than have been released by the burning of fossil fuels to date.

The study showed that more than a century of fossil fuel burning, deforestation and farming has helped push the American West into an explosive new wildfire regime, and the findings suggest far worse could be ahead.

(Paper abstract) Soot from ships worse than expected Produced during combustion of fossil fuels and biofuels, light - absorbing carbon (soot) creates haze and absorbs light with an efficiency nearly one third that of carbon dioxide.

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.

, this means more than anything else that we should advocate removal of the wet blanket suffocating risk - reducing action throughout the economy --- that suffocating wet blanket being fossil fuels sold at prices that omit their worst costs.

The resulting release of climate - damaging greenhouse gases will make biofuels a worse polluter than fossil fuels.

After incorporating these «indirect emission» effects from changes in land use, often into areas valuable as carbon sinks, the analysis found that biofuels produced from vegetable oils are likely to be worse for the climate than fossil fuels.

This was very bad news because «The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.»

It stresses the good, such as «we will use and generate only renewable energy,» rather than the more commonly stated less bad; «we will reduce our use of fossil fuels.»

So it raises the question, if you don't live in California, but instead (for better or worse) inhabit some of the more cloudy or colder corners of the nation, then how can you contribute to saving the world, rather than accepting the default fossil fueled destruction of our planet?

If the world stops using fossil fuels, won't it enter a depression far worse than the 1930s?

But the implication is that the current drought may be worse than normal because of the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels on a colossal scale: the researchers make the link only tentatively.

Leading biofuels wreak environmental havoc (1/3/2008) Biofuels made from world's dominant energy crops — including corn, soy, and oil palm — may have worse environment impacts than conventional fossil fuels, reports a study published in the journal Science.

The case against CO2 is full of liabilities; if there is any bad consequence due in future to future CO2 it will take at least a century to produce an effect large enough to matter; there is no case that reducing human fossil fuel use will produce a climate benefit sooner than it produces a fuel benefit.

A 2007 study by Susan Page of the University of Leicester found that one ton of palm oil produced on peatland generates 15 to 70 tons of carbon dioxide, largely the result of deforestation and draining of peatlands, making palm oil - based - biofuels produced by peatlands conversion worse for climate than burning of conventional fossil fuels.

«A revision of the EU biofuel policy, to avoid biofuels that drive deforestation and are worse for the climate than fossil fuels, is urgently needed.»

«There is a large body of evidence that because of indirect land use change (ILUC), palm oil biodiesel is worse for the climate than the fossil fuel it replaces — perhaps several times worse,» the report concludes.

I like to ask the climate change wackos this question: In the hypothetical event that a global cooling trend emerged (and likely much worse for humans than warming), would you advocate for MORE fossil fuel use?

says Rod, >... unrestricted gaseous waste dumping into our shared atmosphere is a bad idea, especially when there is a lower energy cost alternative that can provide even more reliable power than fossil fuels can.

PS — I happen to believe that there are many good reasons to believe that unrestricted gaseous waste dumping into our shared atmosphere is a bad idea, especially when there is a lower energy cost alternative that can provide even more reliable power than fossil fuels can.

Energy companies are currently pursuing several bioenergy sources with a worse carbon footprint than fossil fuels.

The proven health problems relating to the burning of fossil fuels (especially coal, bunkering oil used for shipping, and diesel oil) are far worse than any that are claimed to be caused by wind turbines.

Below, we've collected some clips and quips culled from the recently published scientific literature (and observations) that show that perhaps the impacts from climate change resulting from our production of energy from fossil fuels isn't going to worse than we thought — and, in fact, may not prove to be so bad at all.

Unfortunately, Power Africa appears to emphasize large, centralized natural gas projects — a dirty fossil fuel that some scientists believe is worse for the climate than coal.

Worse, if nothing is done and we simply burn all the fossil fuels we can get on hands on, we're headed for way more than 2xCO2.

If one compares the quality of life, standard of living and average life expectancy at birth of those of us who are fortunate to live in nations that have profited from this access with those poor, unfortunate souls in the nations that have not done so, it is clear that inexpensive energy from low - cost fossil fuels have brought us far more benefits than the damage, which climate models could imagine for the future, even in the worst CAGW incarnation.

Your other recommendation, purchasing bogus «offsets» for your fossil fuel emissions is worse than useless — that's just a smoke - and - mirrors game — the fossil CO2 isn't removed from the atmosphere because you bought into a artful scam.

234, Ike Solem: Your other recommendation, purchasing bogus «offsets» for your fossil fuel emissions is worse than useless — that's just a smoke - and - mirrors game — the fossil CO2 isn't removed from the atmosphere because you bought into a artful scam

(01/03/2008) Biofuels made from world's dominant energy crops — including corn, soy, and oil palm — may have worse environment impacts than conventional fossil fuels, reports a study published in the journal Science.

Agreed, this is the worst case scenario, and even in that case solar panels are still a better choice than fossil fuels.

The combined negative effects of hydraulic fracturing mean it's worse than other fossil fuels, the report finds.

In practical terms, that means that the amount of time it takes to payback the carbon debt of producing biofuel on that land to replace fossil fuels is even greater than we thought; and pretty much makes palm oil biodiesel produced in such conditions worse than petroleum - based diesel.