A Quote by Barry Commoner

It is simply economically impossible to require controls that even approach zero emissions. — © Barry Commoner
It is simply economically impossible to require controls that even approach zero emissions.
Carbon zero simply means that the emissions you are releasing either are zero or balance out to zero.
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.
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.
The crux of the sea level issue is that it starts very slowly but once it gets going it is practically unstoppable...There is no way I can see to stop this rise, even if we have gone to zero emissions.
The only number that would ever be enough is 0. Zero pounds, zero life, size zero, double-zero, zero point. Zero in tennis is love. I finally get it.
Sensible policies on global warming should weight the costs of slowing climate change against the benefits of slower climate change. Ironically, recent policy initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, have been introduced without any attempt to link the emissions controls with the benefits of the lower emissions.
The vector equilibrium is the true zero reference of the energetic mathematics. Zero pulsation in the vector equilibrium is the nearest approach we will ever know to eternity and god: the zero phase of conceptual integrity inherent in the positive and negative asymmetries that propagate the differentials of consciousness.
Taking bold action on climate change simply makes good business sense. It's also the right thing to do for people and the planet. Setting a net-zero GHG emissions target by 2050 will drive innovation, grow jobs, build prosperity, and secure a better world for what will soon be 9 billion people.
We must reduce the emissions 100 percent. In Venezuela, the emissions are currently insignificant compared to the emissions of the developed countries.
But that was the thing about zero. Its weakness. Even if zero had taken over the entire universe, the biggest fascist of all, one tiny gesture could deny it. One footprint, one atom. You didn't have to be a genius. You didn't even have to know that was what you were doing. You made a mark. You changed something. It said, "A human being passed here." And changed zero to one.
If we don't start with rapid emissions reductions and substantial emissions reductions, then we will pass a danger point, beyond which the consequences for many people and countries on Earth will simply become unacceptable and eventually disastrous.
Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.
Why would anyone want to be called a size zero or even aspire to being a zero? I don't even understand the thinking behind it, let alone the practicalities. What is all that about?
I don't expect that the president-elect [Donald Trump] will follow exactly our blueprint or our approach, but my hope is that he does not simply take a real-politic approach and suggest that, you know, if we just cut some deals with Russia, even if it hurts people or even if it violates international norms, or even if it leaves smaller countries vulnerable or creates long-term problems in regions like Syria, that we just do whatever is convenient at the time.
The policies being promoted are insane... If you believe energy poverty is a good thing, you should support controls on carbon emissions. But most of the world disagrees with that.
With the Green New Deal, Seoul is taking big steps to transition to a net-zero emissions economy in 2050.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!