Example collocations logo

Emission in sentence

182 examples of Emission in a sentence

Measures aimed at accomplishing this could be particularly effective in countries where emission standards for diesel-fueled vehicles have not yet been introduced, and in countries, especially in Asia and Africa, where rural dwellings are heated by primitive stoves and food is prepared over open fires, causing large emissions of soot particles.
This requires emission reductions of 45-50% in industrialized countries by 2020, and almost complete de-carbonization by 2050, not the levels of 15-25% by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050 that are now on the table.
But, despite being the EU’s third poorest country, the European Commission’s rulings mean that it must purchase emission quotas from richer and more polluting EU members that have done little to meet their Kyoto commitments.
Fifteen years prior to onset, a positron emission tomography (PET) scan showed amyloid-beta being deposited in plaques in the brain itself.
Germany has already contributed three-quarters of the aggregate EU-wide reductions of CO2 emission from 1990 to 2008-2012 to which the EU committed in the Kyoto protocol.
So the sort of emission reductions in the advanced countries that are being talked about - including all the cost-free reductions and greater use of windmills and so on - will have no measurable impact on global emissions unless Third World countries greatly reduce their emissions.
The EU’s pioneering carbon-trading scheme is also an important step forward, though emission allowances will have to be cut and the cost of emitting increased if the system is to be effective.
But, instead of raising revenue by auctioning the emission permits, Obama has agreed to distribute them without charge to favored industries in order to attract enough congressional votes.
Another option is to combine carbon-based energy (coal, oil, and gas) with new technologies that prevent the emission of airborne carbon.
One requires cuts in the emission of greenhouse gases; the other has tended to promote the combustion of fossil fuels for transport and energy.
The atmosphere contains about 750 gigatons of CO2, while total annual human emission is approximately 5.5 Gt, thus adding annually roughly 0.7% of the total.
CCS technology captures carbon dioxide at the source of its emission, compresses it, and stores it permanently underground.
AILAC, which comprises Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, and Peru, can be a critical voice for worldwide cuts in greenhouse-gas emission based on countries’ differentiated responsibilities.
Whatever form it takes, the message should be direct and transparent, and it should also target US corporations taking advantage of any relaxation of domestic environmental and emission standards.
Auto companies can’t afford to produce two different sets of cars for states with strict and lenient emission rules.
A system to cap CO2 emissions and trade emission allowances would channel resources toward the most cost-effective reduction measures.
Such deals would ease concern in competitive global industries that strict emission rules in one region would put companies at a disadvantage relative to rivals in countries with less strict policies.
Cap-and-trade systems could provide a potential source of funds through the auctioning of emission allowances.
According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CCS may contribute up to 55% of the emission reductions that scientists believe are necessary during this century to address global warming.
They could do so by capping emissions and creating a market where companies can buy and sell emission allowances, as in the European Emissions Trading Scheme.
For example, the EU recently set aside 300 million tradable emission allowances, to be awarded to innovative renewable energy projects or CO2 storage projects.
And, because coal- and gas-fired power stations last 50 years or more, such investments raise the risk of either locking in emission levels incompatible with the climate target, or forcing major asset write-offs.
The new agreement provides an enormous opportunity to prevent the emission of 2.5 billion tons of CO2 in the first 15 years – the equivalent of taking roughly 35 million cars off the road every year the program is in force.
In justifying his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Bush has always referred to the fact that it did not commit China and India to mandatory emission limits.
Giving emission allowances is like giving away money – potentially hundreds of billions of dollars.
Kyoto’s underlying principle – that countries that emitted more in 1990 are allowed to emit more in the future – is unacceptable to developing countries, as is granting greater emission rights to countries with a higher GDP.
The only principle that has some ethical basis is equal emission rights per capita (with some adjustments – for instance, the US has already used up its share of the global atmosphere, so it should have fewer emission allowances).
While it provides them an incentive not to pollute, emission allowances offset much of what they would have to pay under a tax system.
Yet, no one has proposed an acceptable set of principles for assigning emission rights.
The consequences of the failure are already apparent: the price of emission rights in the European Union Emission Trading System has fallen, which means that firms will have less incentive to reduce emissions now and less incentive to invest in innovations that will reduce emissions in the future.
BackNext