Example collocations logo

Carbon in sentence

2411 examples of Carbon in a sentence

The case for reducing carbon dioxide emissions – and slowing the rate of anthropogenic warming – grows stronger with every new catastrophe.
Policymakers are equally reluctant to champion meaningful changes – like carbon taxes or the elimination of fossil-fuel subsidies.
In March, Chinese authorities reported that the country was already exceeding official targets for energy efficiency, carbon intensity, and the share of clean energy sources.
Partnership around the world must be maintained in the global effort to achieve a smooth transition to low carbon and climate-smart development.
Several gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, warm the planet as their concentrations in the atmosphere increase.
The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide.
How, then, can we sustain worldwide economic progress while cutting back sharply on carbon emissions?
But this technology, called carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), is not yet proven on a large scale.
Only Europe has tried to make a serious shift away from carbon emissions, creating a system that requires each industrial emitter to obtain a permit for each ton of CO2 emissions.
With a long-term and predictable carbon tax and subsidy system, the world would move systematically toward low-carbon energy, greater energy efficiency, and CCS.
Water contamination and scarcity, alongside carbon dioxide emissions and lethal levels of air pollution, are imperiling people’s health and jeopardizing the sustainability of China’s economic performance.
China’s Climate CommitmentBEIJING – In what some might consider a surprising development, China – currently the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide – is emerging as a global leader in climate policy as it seeks to build a cleaner and more efficient economy.
With this mix of policies, Chinese carbon emissions could peak by 2030, even as the economy grows at a rate of 4-5%.
We also know beyond doubt that emissions from human activities have substantially increased the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) in our atmosphere.
Beyond the Carbon CrusadeCOPENHAGEN – At its heart, much of the debate over climate change deals with just one divisive and vexing question: How big should cuts in carbon emissions be?
We should be open to other ways to stop warming – such as cutting carbon emissions in the future instead of now, or focusing on reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases.
Global warming will create significant problems, so carbon reductions offer significant benefits.
Cutting carbon emissions, however, requires a reduction in the basic energy use that underpins modern society, so it will also mean significant costs.
The prominent climate economist Professor Richard Tol of Hamburg University has analyzed the benefits and costs of cutting carbon now versus cutting it in the future.
Tol strikingly shows that grand promises of drastic, immediate carbon cuts – reminiscent of the call for 80% reductions by mid-century that some politicians and lobbyists make – are an incredibly expensive way of doing very little good.
It would be smarter to act cautiously by implementing a low carbon tax of about $0.5 per ton – about 0.5 US cent per gallon of gas or 0.1 euro-cent per litre of petrol – and increase it gradually through the century.
This would not cut carbon emissions spectacularly, but nor would it be a spectacular waste of public funds.
Taxing fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions is a sensible part of the solution to climate change, but it is not the only or best way to prevent warming.
There are other ways to cut carbon from the atmosphere.
Moreover, although politicians focus nearly exclusively on cutting carbon emissions, CO2 is not the only gas causing warming.
Cutting methane is actually cheaper than cutting carbon.
We could also put a bigger focus on reducing black carbon, considered responsible for as much as 40% of current net warming and one-third of Arctic melting.
Black carbon is essentially the soot produced by diesel emissions, and – in developing countries – by the burning of organic matter to cook food and stay warm.
Sooty pollution from indoor fires claims several million lives each year, so reducing black carbon would be a life-saver.
A team of economists led by David Montgomery estimates that spending $359 million could realistically slash 19% of black carbon emissions.
BackNext