Example collocations logo

Carbon in sentence

2411 examples of Carbon in a sentence

In reality, a “dash for gas” would consume almost two-thirds of G20 countries’ combined carbon budget by 2050.
A third ingredient of fossil-fuel flimflam is so-called clean coal, often relying on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies.
And now, CCS is even being promoted as an enabling technology for magical schemes that can “suck” carbon out of the atmosphere.
The European Union is providing that certainty through its clean-energy targets, carbon markets, and feed-in tariffs (under which utilities guarantee to pay a fixed rate for clean energy).
China’s Green DriversBEIJING – Earlier this month, China’s government announced another bold move to ease traffic congestion and reduce carbon emissions: the authorities want 60% of all motor-vehicle use in towns and cities to be public transportation, and the government in Beijing is urging regional governments to use more zero-emission and alternative-energy vehicles.
In April, the State Council, China’s highest administrative authority, unveiled targets aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of the country’s cars.
Reliance on coal and oil has made China the world’s largest source of carbon emissions, and has eroded the quality of life for Chinese citizens.
Moreover, the oil sheiks and other producers of fossil fuels who ultimately control the amount of carbon released to the atmosphere were not part of the deal.
The bad news is that this is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, and that the owners of natural resources will therefore make every attempt to extract their resources and thus pump the fossil carbon into the atmosphere before the UN finds a way out of this impasse.
A comprehensive agreement would bring certainty to the carbon markets and strengthen the various mechanisms that are already encouraging renewables in developing economies and pump-priming private-sector investments.
In this context, the recent decision by a coalition of institutional investors to measure and disclose the carbon footprint of at least $500 billion in investments is a step forward.
Indeed, the projects financed by these bonds were required to meet stringent criteria, including a prior analysis of their carbon footprint, proof of a clear and significant impact on climate change, and a design that is aligned with the broader strategies being pursued by local actors and countries.
These arguments were used in 1991, to torpedo the idea of carbon dioxide controls; in 1993, against the Clinton administration’s proposed BTU tax (an energy surcharge that would have taxed sources based on their heat and carbon content); in 1996, against the goals of the UN Conference of Parties in Geneva (COP2); in 1997, against the goals of the UN Conference of Parties in Kyoto (COP3); and in 1998, against the Kyoto Protocol’s implementation.
In the run-up to the 1997 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, for example, the oil company Mobil claimed in an advertisement placed in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times that “the cost of limiting emissions could range from $200 to $580 per ton of carbon,” based on “a study just issued by Charles River Associates.”
Governments should levy gradually rising carbon taxes, using the revenues to finance low-carbon energy systems.
Pollution – including carbon emissions – must no longer be free.
We can now find new patterns that are not readily evident to the human observer – and this already suggests ways to lower energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.
Likewise, in respect of the environment and energy, whatever the financial pressures, if we think that the earth’s climate is probably changing as a result of human activity, we need to set the global economy on a low carbon path to the future.
There are exemplary reasons of energy security why we need to change the nature of our economies to drive down carbon dependence.
One key element is setting a price on carbon emissions, which would address the massive market failure resulting from the fact that products and services that involve emissions of greenhouse gases do not reflect the cost of the damage that they cause through climate change.
The Group’s report showed that a modest price on emissions, in the range of $20-25 per ton of carbon dioxide, would push incentives in the right direction, raise substantial public revenue, and foster private investment crucial to the new industrial revolution needed to make the low-carbon economy a reality.
If rich countries introduce domestic carbon taxes or auction emissions permits based on this price level, they could potentially provide $30 billion a year for developing countries by using just 10% of the revenues.
A carbon tax on international shipping and aviation set at the same level (or auction revenues from emissions caps, if that pricing route is followed) could generate $10 billion annually for international climate action from just 25-50% of the revenues, even after ensuring that costs borne by developing countries are covered.
Sound policies in developing countries, a price for carbon, and risk-sharing and co-financing with MDBs and other national and international institutions can yield private flows that are many times the public resources involved in fostering them.
With a price of around $25 per ton of carbon dioxide, and providing incentives for private sector flows, increased flows from carbon markets could be $30-$50 billion.
The EU did not just implement a single carbon market in order to meet its target for CO2 emissions.
In fact, new studies show that 38% of the EU carbon cuts leak elsewhere, meaning that European climate policy avoids not three cents of climate damage per dollar spent, but less than two.
Over time – but this could take years – consumers could invest in alternative energy sources and reduce demand for fossil fuels via carbon taxes and new technologies.
Currently, around 80% of worldwide primary energy comes from fossil fuels, the combustion of which emits around 34 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
The city’s political leaders promise that this strategy for attaining carbon neutrality “provides an overall positive economic picture and will lead to economic benefits for Copenhageners” based on the expectation that prices for conventional energy sources like coal, oil, and gas will rise in the coming years.
BackNext