Example collocations logo

Carbon in sentence

2411 examples of Carbon in a sentence

Even assuming a very large carbon tax, this amounts to a rather paltry $142 million, meaning that the project’s value – $261 million in savings – stems largely from the $1.04 billion saved on electricity payments.
Although some activists still rely on scare tactics – witness the launch of an advertisement depicting the bombing of anybody who is hesitant to embrace carbon cuts – many activists now spend more time highlighting the “benefits” of their policy prescription.
Proponents of carbon cuts argue that green-energy technologies only seem more expensive, because the price of fossil fuels does not reflect the cost of their impact on the climate.
By the same token, the prediction that governments will impose massive carbon taxes has little basis in reality.
Trying to force carbon cuts instead of investing first in research puts the cart before the horse.
But the real change that is needed is the realization that drastic, early carbon cuts are a poor response to global warming – no matter how they are packaged.
The US becomes focused on leading in six key clean-tech areas: building efficiency, battery technology, solar, carbon capture and storage (CCS), smart grids, and electric vehicles (EV).
It did sign the Kyoto agreement, albeit as an “Annex I state,” meaning that it did not commit to any defined limits on carbon emissions.
If the US is serious about reaching a constructive outcome in Copenhagen, it must set radical and practical targets, take responsibility for its historic carbon emissions, and commit itself to support developing countries’ efforts by means of capacity building, technology transfer, and finance.
They should demand a price on carbon, drive innovation, and seek opportunities to fund low-carbon development across Africa.
At the G8 summit in Italy this summer, it was agreed to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
Imagine if, thanks to wind and solar, China could wean itself from coal, which accounts for 85% of its carbon emissions.
Indeed, though the IPCC, according to its own principles, is a policy-neutral organization, its head, Rajendra Pachauri, will explicitly feed the frenzy by insisting that “humanity has pushed the world’s climate system to the brink,” and that we need to complete a “transition away from fossil fuels,” maybe with some kind of “price of carbon.”
As a result, the likely outcome of the report’s release will be more of the same: a welter of scary scenarios, followed by politicians promising huge carbon cuts and expensive policies that have virtually no impact on climate change.
The best way to reduce long-term climate change is to reduce carbon emissions.
There are at least three options: shift to non-carbon energy sources such as solar or nuclear energy; capture and dispose of the carbon dioxide emitted at carbon-based power plants; economize on energy use, for example by shifting to hybrid automobiles and trucks.
Most importantly, our emissions of carbon dioxide may cause global climate patterns to depart significantly from their natural course for many millennia to come.
At the same time, the methane-producing cattle population has risen to 1.4 billion, contributing to the increasing rate of destruction of tropical rainforests, which releases carbon dioxide and contributes to faster species extinction.
These substances comprise a complex package of carbon chemistry, produced by biology and geophysics operating within a deep rhythm of variation and evolution originating far from our own epoch.
In the Solar System, NASA’s Curiosity rover has discovered what may be organic carbon in the fossil mud of an ancient Martian lakebed.
In order to provide more energy to meet development goals without accelerating global warming, there must be a shift to a new energy infrastructure built around renewables (of which the most significant are probably solar power, wind, and biofuels), cleaner coal, and carbon capture and storage.
Meanwhile, multilateral and national development banks should increase funding for climate-related investments, shift resources away from projects that imply a large carbon footprint, and coordinate stakeholders and investors, so that risks can be mitigated and private-sector finance can be attracted.
An increasingly powerful movement argues that the world is threatened with great harm from future climate changes - say, the notorious "greenhouse effect" - and that we must enact tough measures to limit carbon emissions today in order to save the world for tomorrow.
Against this trivial sacrifice one has to weigh the burden imposed by measures to reduce carbon emissions now and in the near future.
What advocates of greater efforts to reduce carbon emissions - or of increasing expenditures on environmental preservation - overlook is that at any point in time there is a constraint on total world output.
To maintain that not enough is being spent for some environmental purposes - say, reducing carbon emissions - implies that too much is being spent on others.
It is generally believed that the appropriate preventive measure is to stop burning fossil fuels and reduce the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The international auctioning of emissions allowances and allowances in domestic emissions-trading schemes, a carbon tax, revenues from international transport, a surcharge on electricity transmission, and financial transaction taxes could generate as much as $220 billion per year in additional revenues.
Moreover, its hundreds of billions of trees store massive amounts of carbon.
Extracting Argentina’s shale resources would not only require dangerous and expensive hydraulic fracturing (fracking); exploiting them would result in around 50 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
BackNext