Nowhere are emissions monitored constantly. So the truth is that the real quantity of dioxin emissions from incineration remains unknown.
The United States did not sign Kyoto, yet its emissions are not that different from the countries that did sign it.
If Britain was to close down altogether overnight, then China would take up the slack of carbon emissions in two years. If America closed down, just the growth in China’s emissions would replace America’s emissions in 12 years.
Cows and other livestock account for roughly one-sixth of all greenhouse-gas emissions, and as a general point, eating meat means taxing the Earth.
The Clean Power Plan sets the first-ever national carbon pollution standards for the power sector, the single-biggest source of carbon emissions in the United States.
It is impossible to talk about slowing climate change without talking about reducing CO2 emissions. Equally, it is impossible to talk about adapting to climate change without considering how we will feed ourselves. And it is out of the question that we can adapt agriculture without conserving crop diversity.
Nothing is being done of any real significance. Our demand is the government must tell the truth about the crisis we’re in. And that includes working with communities to build resilience… We want to go to net carbon zero emissions by 2015 and reduce our consumption levels.
The world needs to slash emissions by tens of billions of tons annually, which categorically requires government investment and government regulations.
It’s fine if you’re making 1,000 or 2,000 of an electric car, and I think there is value in that in a lot of ways, but it’s not going to have a big dent in oil consumption in the country, or CO2 emissions.
Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany have detailed plans to cut their greenhouse emissions by 20 to 50 percent.
Nuclear power will help provide the electricity that our growing economy needs without increasing emissions. This is truly an environmentally responsible source of energy.
We must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However, that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model: We must go from capitalism to socialism.
We need more food, more forests, better livelihoods for smallholder farmers, and lower emissions. If we want any of them, we must have all of them.
While the leading environmental alarmists burn fossil fuels like they’re going out of style, the United States under President Trump has led the world in reducing carbon emissions.
As with any difficult challenge that the public and policymakers face, there is no single solution or silver bullet that will serve as the answer to how the United States works to reduce carbon emissions.
In the stable emissions model, in which a rise in global surface temperatures by two degrees Celsius from preindustrial times is more than likely, the Northeast would still see a robust increase in nitrogen loading.
Both San Francisco and New York are taking bold, sweeping action to reduce emissions, make our infrastructure more resilient and improve the health of our people. We are also leading the charge against those who continue to deny the existence of climate change.
We clearly have to reduce harmful energy emissions. Everyone acknowledges we simply can’t switch off fossil fuels overnight.
Most reputable scientists agree that climate change is real and that the effects are likely to be bad. But nobody can say for sure exactly what ‘bad’ means. The safest and most equitable way out of this horrific mess is simple: cut fossil-fuel emissions.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 was designed to control air pollution on a national level by authorizing the development of comprehensive regulations to limit emissions.
The Conservatives will have a serious plan that is not a tax on families and businesses, that will get our emissions down by partnering, by being strategic and and taking it seriously, but not through just a tax mechanism.
I have advocated an entirely different approach than cap and tax, which would be worldwide in application and which emphasizes technology as a way of reducing total emissions.
We want an economy that grows health and wellbeing, not debt and carbon emissions. An economy that prepares and protects us from shocks to come, rather than making them worse. An economy that shares resources to meet all our needs, regardless of background. An economy that lets us live.
The environmental benefits of hydrogen are also outstanding. When used as an energy source, hydrogen produces no emissions besides water. Zero polluting emissions, an amazing advance over the current sources of energy that we use.
Ultimately, refiners, like all of us, are going to have to clean up their emissions.
What we want to do is put a price on greenhouse gases. Because if they’re more expensive, businesses will find a way to be more efficient or switch to solar or hydro or wind power. So that will reduce emissions.
New York and Connecticut belong to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to cut carbon emissions, and New York City has been a leader in energy efficiency.
In the Labour Party we are absolutely united in our belief that shipping must define its ‘fair share’ of tackling climate change, and develop an emissions reduction plan for the sector.
Without international participation, jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas to countries that require few, if any, environmental protections, harming the global environment as well as the U.S. economy.
China leads the world in energy consumption, carbon emissions, and the release of major air and water pollutants, and the environmental impact is felt both regionally and globally.
In the absence of federal leadership, Coloradans should take our rightful role as leaders seriously and work with other states and countries to reduce carbon emissions.
Are we better off if we displace jobs and investments to other countries and global emissions go up? I say no. Let’s bring that production here and have less emissions globally because we can make things more efficiently and cleaner.
An inherent tension between the seeming ineffectiveness of immediate and individual action and the long view the government is trying to take here may be common to every society trying to reduce emissions and to encourage participation.
Environmental advocates say that changing how much power computers and monitors use in idle mode can cut greenhouse gas emissions without requiring consumers to change their behavior.
If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.
Humanity has nearly suffocated the globe with carbon dioxide, yet nuclear power plants that produce no such emissions are so mired in objections and obstruction that, despite renewed interest on every continent, it is unlikely another will be built in the United States.
The sun doesn’t shine at night, and wind power is highly variable. To meet our emissions goals, we’re going to have to grasp every arrow in the quiver, and nuclear is one of those arrows.
EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE), would restore the states’ proper role under the Clean Air Act and our system of federalism. Our plan would allow states to establish standards of performance that meet EPA emissions guidelines.
We need to reduce carbon emissions, protect Maine’s key industries and preserve our coastlines from flooding and rising sea levels.
By taxing CO2, firms and households would have an incentive to retrofit for the world of the future. The tax would also provide firms with incentives to innovate in ways that reduce energy usage and emissions – giving them a dynamic competitive advantage.
EPA will set a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions that allows auto manufacturers to make cars that people both want and can afford – while still expanding environmental and safety benefits of newer cars.
Pages: 1 2
