Top 568 Co2 Emissions Quotes & Sayings - Page 3
Explore popular Co2 Emissions quotes.
Last updated on April 21, 2025.
Organisms don't think of CO2 as a poison. Plants and organisms that make shells, coral, think of it as a building block.
There is a majority of scientists that say that global carbon emissions by humans causes some changes in the climate.
I support the need for Canada to play a significant role in reducing global emissions.
We have fans that circulate air in the cabin of the module of the space shuttle. They're running all the time. They're absolutely necessary because, otherwise, you will breathe your own CO2 and intoxicate yourself quite fast.
There is some CO2-water vapor feedback. But it's not operating on a global scale. The modellers cannot accurately separate water vapour from the effects of clouds and rainfall.
Investigations during the last few decades have brought hydrogen instead of carbon, and instead of CO2 water, the mother of all life, into the foreground.
I voted against H.R. 1119, which would weaken emissions standards for coal refuse power plants.
The growing evidence of climate change is forcing attention on carbon emissions and their reduction.
I believe that man does have an impact on the climate, that CO2 has an impact on the climate, and we do take that seriously.
Sunspots and cosmic rays have a 79 percent correlation with our thermometer record since 1860. Meanwhile the CO2 correlation is a mere 22 percent.
There was almost a universal acceptance of unhealthy conditions. Sulfur dioxide in smokestack emissions were the price, or smell, of prosperity.
We are totally schizophrenic. We are trying to reduce emissions, and we subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels.
Climate neutrality means a situation where the world can naturally absorb the emissions that will continue to be produced in our societies.
People sometimes say we need to be really almost on a wartime footing if you want to change. Our whole economy is based on burning fossil fuels, which is taking CO2 out of the ground and putting it up into the air.
It looks as though yields of over 10 times what we can currently grow per acre are feasible if you control the CO2 concentration, the humidity, the temperature, all the various factors that plants depend on to grow rapidly.
We happen to believe that emissions going into the atmosphere are not good for us as humans or Mother Earth.
The US is responsible for 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. It should take responsibility for leading the way.
Only by advocating 'politically unrealistic' CO2 concentrations can runaway global warming be avoided. But what is politically realistic for humans is whollymunrelated to what is physically realistic for the planet.
Governments have to conclude a fair, universal, and binding climate agreement, by which every country commits to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
I don't think you have a choice but to pull CO2 back that has already made it out, or is about to make it out, because we are not overnight shutting down all the coal plants.
We have an atmosphere that is roughly 21% oxygen. The rest of it is largely nitrogen. There's just enough carbon dioxide (CO2) to drive photosynthesis. That has been, throughout the history of our species, pretty stable. Until recently.
The United States could dramatically reduce its carbon emissions per kilowatt-hour without raising its overall energy bill.
It is simply economically impossible to require controls that even approach zero emissions.
By burning fossil fuels, we are already dumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, which has a profound effect on the climate. So, like it or not, we're already messing with a system we don't understand.
Climate action in cities is the key that unlocks a low emissions and resilient future.
Ultimately, refiners, like all of us, are going to have to clean up their emissions.
Organisms dont think of CO2 as a poison. Plants and organisms that make shells, coral, think of it as a building block.
The automotive X Prize, to a great degree, is focused on addressing petroleum usage and carbon emissions.
If there's one thing I would like to see, it'd be for us to be able to price the cost of carbon emissions.
I'm totally in favour of meeting our Paris commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But I don't think we should do that by making ourselves uncompetitive.
Our position is that we believe that Canada has to have a comprehensive plan to significantly reduce global emissions.
On some issues, I'm a staunch Conservative — like curtailing greenhouse gas emissions so that we can Conserve the environment.
If the US is the country that most contributes with greenhouse gases, in the world, it should assume more responsibility to reduce emissions
The scientists who do climate research understand that much of the ever increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1850 must be attributed to burning those fossil fuels to produce the energy that drives industrialization.
We can't conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change.
Once firms had to pay to pollute, they became incredibly inventive at figuring out cheaper ways to eliminate their SO2 emissions.
...it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.
We clearly have to reduce harmful energy emissions. Everyone acknowledges we simply can't switch off fossil fuels overnight.
In a well-monitored storage site, it is always possible to release CO2 in a controlled manner in the unlikely event that it threatens to escape. Such a release is certainly no worse than ignoring the emission in the first place.
With the Green New Deal, Seoul is taking big steps to transition to a net-zero emissions economy in 2050.
Just like you could dump oil into the Cuyahoga in the 60s and let someone else foot the bill, today you can pump CO2 into the atmosphere and let the whole world foot the bill.
Climate change threatens the wellbeing of every person around the world and can only be addressed through a global response to reduce emissions.
Breath does, in fact, connect us all in a very literal way. Take a breath now. And as you breathe, think about what is in your breath. There perhaps is the CO2 from the person sitting next-door to you.
On the environmental front there's concern about global warming and high levels of carbon dioxide, and trees take in CO2 and store carbon.
Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.
The clock is ticking as nature attempts to absorb the increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Almost every way we make electricity today, except for the emerging renewables and nuclear, puts out CO2. And so, what we're going to have to do at a global scale, is create a new system. And so, we need energy miracles.
Make no mistake: Tackling climate change is vital. But to see everything through the lens of short-term CO2 reductions, letting our obsession with carbon blind us to the bigger picture, is to court catastrophe.
We are faced with an incredible challenge to curb our greenhouse-gas emissions around the globe. Everyone has to realize this and come to terms with this.
About fifty million years ago...geological evidence indicates CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.
Nuclear power can continue to help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but we must do everything we can to make it safer.
There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government.
We have 20 years [until 2026] to reduce carbon emissions or climate change will become irreversible.
Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany have detailed plans to cut their greenhouse emissions by 20 to 50 percent.
Creating mechanisms for ending deforestation and promoting regeneration of the environment is one of the most effective ways of achieving net-zero emissions.
Well, I'm not saying that an emissions tax is ever going to be good policy.
I'm committed to the goal of Senate Bill 324, and that is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Reducing and removing greenhouse gas emissions spares our planet from the well-documented degradation that we are witnessing on a global basis.
Renewable energy could reduce emissions but also create jobs and improve public health.
The fact that companies are getting into building power plants that collect their own CO2 on-site shows there's some leadership in that industry. Some industries have seen the writing on the wall: that carbon will have to be managed.