This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
To adjust the focus of this picture a little closer, just our passenger cars and light trucks contribute to a whopping 58 percent of total transportation emissions, placing our car-centric society in the fossilfuel spotlight. Despite its emission reduction potential, this technology comes with caveats.
It’s not just the poor air quality, long lines, and excessive fossilfuel company representation ; nations are still too far apart in their positions on a fossilfuel phaseout, the top priority for this COP. Yet global fossilfuel production and use continue to expand. Particulate matter (PM2.5)
And fossilfuel power plants may not stick to their retirement schedules for a variety of reasons. In 2021 alone, the plants slated for retirement emitted more than 28,000 tonnes of nitrogenoxides (NO x ), 32,000 tonnes of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and 51 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), according to EIA data.
A transition to 100 percent renewable energy is about more than just technology. The shift from fossilfuels in the 100% RES scenario reduces the amount of harmful air pollution from power plants much more than in our “No New Policy”/business-as-usual scenario. by 2035 is needed. And our modeling shows renewables’ power.
The legislation committed nearly $400 billion to support, among other things, wind and solar power, battery storage, electric vehicles, and other clean energy technologies that will make a significant dent in US heat-trapping emissions. It also will save US consumers money because they will spend less on fossilfuels.
The shift from fossilfuels in the 100-percent RES scenario reduces the amount of toxic power plant air pollution much more than what we called a “no-new-policy,” or business-as-usual, scenario. Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogenoxides from power plants in alliance states drop 88 percent and 77 percent respectively by 2040.
Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) research shows that top fossilfuel producers’ emissions are responsible for as much as half of global surface temperature increase. The best solution: Replace fossilfuels with renewable energy. A small number of big corporations are responsible for the climate crisis.
That means it includes the extreme wildfires exacerbated by the fossilfuel industry that burned more than 4% of California in 2021 and 2022. come from burning fossilfuels and pesticide use, and ultrafine particles (PM0.1) These particles are categorized by size.
Communities and ecosystems continue to suffer the consequences of human-caused climate change , primarily from the burning of fossilfuels across our economy. The case for phasing out of fossilfuels and making a just and equitable transition to clean energy has never been more clear. comes from burning fossilfuels.
The majority 6–3 decision sharply curtails the EPA’s authority to set standards based on a broad range of flexible options to cut carbon emissions from the power sector—options such as replacing polluting fossilfuels with cheap and widely available wind and solar power coupled with battery storage.
Gas plants and infrastructure emit nitrogenoxides (NOx) during combustion, which degrade local air quality. There’s a wide range of solutions, including integrating solar, wind and other renewable technologies; investing in new transmission; and reducing demand with efficiency measures. First, there’s air pollution.
California’s leadership on reducing truck pollution has been on full display the past few years, passing critical regulations requiring 90 percent reduction in smog-forming nitrogenoxide (NO X ) emissions from diesel trucks and requiring manufacturers sell an increasing share of electric trucks to move away from fossilfuels altogether.
Most prominently, because the approach is changing from rewarding specific technologies to rewarding anything that meets the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions threshold of “clean”—hence the “tech-neutral” label—exactly how the government goes about determining whether or not something is actually eligible will be enormously important.
Fossil gas, or “natural gas,” as it’s been cunningly branded, is a fossilfuel that causes warming and is harmful to human health. Its mainstream name is nothing more than a clever marketing scheme by Big Oil to make the fuel sound natural, safe, and clean. This is a huge problem. Many reasons!
But with the recent influx of government incentives for hydrogen production, new and improving production and storage technologies, and greater political will than ever before, H 2 ’s reputation is gaining favor. But for many of these use-cases, hydrogen doesn’t do the job particularly well, at least as compared to existing technology.
One is a subsidy to Enbridge—a fossilfuel giant—to build a fossilfuel power plant. Instead, it will lock in polluting fossilfuel infrastructure for decades. Enbridge promises to blend some hydrogen with natural gas, but that’s just a dangerous distraction.
Despite the generous funding opportunities and holistic flexibilities baked into ACF, confusion around and misinformation about the rule may undermine this much-needed shift away from fossil-fueled trucks and buses. The ACF is estimated to significantly reduce pollution from the statewide commercial truck and bus fleet.
While the benefits of the technology are clear to many, its worth considering the fuller range from time to time. And for places where the water gets deep quickly as you move away from land, like off the West Coast and in the Gulf of Maine, floating offshore wind technology is maturing rapidly.
One of the most significant air quality challenges in the Basin is reducing emissions of the ozone precursor nitrogenoxides (NO x ) to meet the ozone standard attainment deadlines. According to the 2016 AQMP, mobile sources contributed about 88% of total NO x emissions in the Basin in 2012.
A team of transportation and policy experts from the University of California released a report today to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) outlining policy options to significantly reduce transportation-related fossilfuel demand and emissions. The state funded the two studies through the 2019 Budget Act.
We found that it’s definitely feasible and, what’s more, we can reap significant health and economic benefits by rapidly transitioning away from fossilfuels to clean energy. Overall economywide fossilfuel use falls 50% between 2021 and 2040 and 82% by 2050. Coal is phased out of the power sector by 2030.
But while greenhouse gas emissions may be reduced, a delivery fulfilled by a diesel-burning truck may lead to increases in emissions of smog-forming nitrogenoxides and lung-damaging particulate matter. The number of available electric truck models in the US and Canada has surpassed 180.
Differences between setting fuel economy and emissions standards Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is obligated to reduce pollution from mobile sources like passenger cars and trucks when those emissions are a risk to public health and/or welfare. On the other hand, NHTSA doesn’t incentivize EVs so heavily.
This is roughly the equivalent of taking 66 million fossil-fueled cars off the road for an entire year. Electric truck technology is here , manufacturers are ready, charging infrastructure is growing at a fast pace, market demand for zero-emissions vehicles is increasing, and incentives are available for fleets to electrify.
The UN’s Climate Change Conference is just about to kick off in Dubai, juxtaposing the powerful political power of the fossilfuel industry and the desperate need to reduce oil and gas usage as we face an ongoing climate crisis. billion, an indication of the harm generated by further delaying much needed action on climate change.
Image via PickPik On May 23, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed emission limits and guidelines for carbon dioxide from fossilfuel-powered plants. The IRA has made tax credits for CCS more accessible and generous , bolstering EPA’s case that the technology is adequately demonstrated and cost-effective.
Coal also emits other air pollution factors such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogenoxides and particulate matter… All this causes smog and soot which in turn cause asthma, cancers of all sorts, cardiovascular diseases… Which brings us to its health effects: coal is a mass murderer and is responsible for immense suffering.
Fossil-fueled trucks, vans, and buses are a major source of climate-disrupting greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogenoxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and hazardous air pollutants that harm public health.
The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies already included in the Taxonomy as activities. The result is an almost 400-page report on the topic.
The court sided with the community and ordered the city to use an analytically sound model developed by Eric Schwartz of the University of Michigan and Jacob Abernethy of the Georgia Institute of Technology to efficiently locate and replace the pipes.
As we now know, fossilfuel companies lied about it for decades to protect their profits. Now that there is a desperate need to slash global warming emissions worldwide to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, it is critical to rapidly phase out the use of all fossilfuels. What accounts for that?
/DEP Publish New Go Solar And Save Toolkit For Schools [PaEN] -- LancasterOnline: Climate Summit At Millersville University Emphasizes Education, Empowerment -- NorthcentralPA.com: EQT Gas Invites Applications For PA Qrew Camps For Students Grades 9-11 To Teach about Natural Gas Industry, Careers -- Penn State Students Help PA Communities Track Carbon (..)
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen approximately 47 percent since 1750, mostly from the burning of fossilfuels for energy. Strategies for capturing carbon from fossilfuel power plants, to prevent it from entering the atmosphere, have long lingered on the sidelines. from 1990–2019.
Those currently operating fossilfuel plants generate 25 percent of U.S. Looking ahead, while the Supreme Court has upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate heat-trapping emissions from power plants, fossilfuel interests will no doubt continue to mount legal challenges to stall agency progress. And as the West Virginia v.
Let polluting industriesespecially fossilfuel interestsdictate the rules The first Trump administration opened the doors wide for corporations to interfere with government oversight and maximize profits over public and worker safety. These incidents happened across agencies and on a wide range of policies.
Here, we still want to cut global warming emissions by replacing polluting cars with clean vehicles and ramping up renewable energy to phase out fossilfuel powerplants. We could take advantage of Wyoming wind and Nevada solar so California could more quickly shut down fossil-fuel powerplants.
Despite the panel’s regular reports about the consequences of burning fossilfuels, between 1990 and 2019 global emissions rose 54 percent and they are still rising. or 2 degrees without a radical reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and electrifying many of the things that currently run on fossilfuels. The IPCC said 1.5
Adding to the complexity, uncertainties regarding future costs abound: Among many others, how big will the affected population be in 100 years, and what technological advances may occur affecting climate resiliency? That choice has a dramatic effect: an SCC of $10 at a 5% discount rate becomes $50 at a 2.5% discount rate.
2 trillion plan includes $50 billion to create a new technology directorate for NSF. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy forms Interagency Task Force on Scientific Integrity. . There is $180 billion pegged overall in the plan for investment in research and development and “technologies of the future.”.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content