Example collocations logo

Emissions in sentence

2828 examples of Emissions in a sentence

Though it has not yet been implemented, its waste targets have the potential to save the European Union 190 million tons of CO2 emissions per year.
That is the equivalent of annual emissions in the Netherlands.
Given low carbon prices, the long-term consequences of emissions count for little, even among progressive asset managers.
The Clinton administration had called for bold action as far back as 1993, proposing what was in effect a tax on carbon emissions; but an alliance of polluters, led by the coal, oil, and auto industries beat back this initiative.
But a closer look at what he is doing, and not doing, shows clearly that he has mostly heard the call of his campaign contributors from the oil and coal industries, and that he has once again put their interests over the global interest in reducing emissions.
As the world’s largest polluter, accounting for roughly a quarter of global carbon emissions, America’s reluctance to do more is perhaps understandable, if not forgivable.
Some in Europe worry that stringent action on global warming may be counterproductive: energy-intensive industries may simply move to the US or other countries that pay little attention to emissions.
But it left out a majority of the sources of emissions, and unless something is done to include the US and the developing countries in a meaningful way, it will be little more than a symbolic gesture.
This “coalition of the willing” could agree to certain basic standards: to forego building coal-fired plants, increase automobiles’ fuel efficiency, and provide targeted assistance to developing countries to enhance their energy efficiency and reduce emissions.
Coalition members could also agree to provide stronger incentives to their own producers, through either more stringent caps on emissions or higher taxes on pollution.
Indeed, China was not asked to bear anything like its rightful share of the burden in curbing carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
Emissions Reduction by the NumbersCAMBRIDGE – Discussions in Beijing between US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping – the leaders of the world’s two largest carbon-emitting countries – produced an unexpected, groundbreaking bilateral agreement on greenhouse-gas emissions.
Under the new deal, the US is to reduce its emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels within 20 years, and China’s emissions are to peak by 2030.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol marked a major step forward in efforts to head off the most disastrous consequences of climate change, establishing a precedent for legally binding limits on emissions.
A loose system of individual commitments, in which each country unilaterally sets emissions targets, can help build trust and momentum for a more inclusive successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which many hope will be forged at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015.
India point outs that an average American emits ten times as much as an average Indian, and argues that emissions allowances should therefore be allocated according to population.
The US insists that it would be unfair to burden its companies if energy-intensive industries could simply relocate to developing countries that had not yet constrained their emissions.
Emission targets implicitly tend to obey a formula that quantifies three major principles: all countries should rein in their emissions, but rich countries should accept bigger cuts than poor countries; countries where emissions have recently increased rapidly should be given some time to bring them back down; and no country or group of countries should suffer disproportionately large economic costs.
In Kyoto, every 10% increase in per capita income corresponded to an agreed emissions reduction of 1.4%.
To be sure, the question of how to share the economic burden of any particular global emissions path is completely different from the question of how environmentally ambitious overall climate-change mitigation efforts should be.
The graph below compares the per capita income of countries with the emissions cuts that they have pledged to deliver in 2020.
Each country’s cut is measured relative to a particular baseline that averages its actual emissions level in 2005 with emissions expected in 2020, absent international action.
On average, each 10% increase in income corresponds with a 1.4% cut in emissions.
Under the next president, the US will no longer be a drag on international efforts to create a global regime that sets a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions.
And agriculture is also a major culprit in climate change, responsible for 33% of all greenhouse-gas emissions if deforestation for cultivation and pastures is included in the tally.
Yet activists claimed that there was a moral obligation to cut carbon-dioxide emissions, and were cheered on by businesses that stood to gain.
Moreover, global CO2 emissions reached a record high in 2012.
The second coalition should be a group of countries – in particular, the 23 members of the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), which account for about 80% of global energy demand, 80% of greenhouse-gas emissions, and 90% of clean-energy investments – that agree to double their economies’ rate of energy efficiency.
Without the development of reserves, countries will need to revert to liquid fuels, at higher cost and larger carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels carry a hefty price.
BackNext