Example collocations logo

Emissions in sentence

2828 examples of Emissions in a sentence

While about 40 countries and 23 cities, states, and regions are using a carbon price, this covers only 12% of annual greenhouse-gas emissions.
National leaders must honor the timetable for adaptation and emissions reductions.
All are designed to lower greenhouse-gas emissions and help people adapt to the world’s changing climate.
We are at a remarkable moment in the long battle to reduce harmful emissions, and we must capitalize on this global commitment to preserve our planet for future generations.
Acting on their own, nation-states can successfully address neither tax avoidance nor carbon emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol allows countries to meet their target reductions of CO2 emissions by substituting bio-fuels for fossil fuels.
The effect on the atmosphere is equivalent to 18% of annual CO2 emissions, more than from the world’s entire transport sector.
Such taxes play a crucial role in cutting the carbon emissions that cause climate change.
Europe needs fiscal consolidation, reductions in carbon emissions, and a strategy for economic growth.
But India does not have the access to inexpensive natural gas, which has allowed the US to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions in recent years.
India has expressed a willingness to reduce emissions, but on the condition that developed countries do their share, to set an example.
At a recent news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, Modi vowed to “continue working” to reduce emissions, “above and beyond the Paris accord.”
Indians like to point out that while China is home to 17.5% of the world’s population, and India is home to 17%, China generates more than 23% of global emissions, while India accounts for less than 10%.
In terms of emissions per capita among the world’s polluters, India ranks 128th – between Anguilla and Moldova.
Without a sharp rise in global ambition for emissions reductions by 2020, we will be unable to save the world’s most vulnerable countries.
Yet unless the rising curve of annual emissions can be reversed, the CO2 concentration will irrevocably reach a truly threatening level.
Then, in a stunning deus ex machina, it will be revealed that the world’s largest fossil-fuel companies – the so-called supermajors – have agreed to bring net emissions to zero by 2100, by capturing carbon at the source, sucking it out of the atmosphere, and storing it underground.
The technology required has yet to be invented, and bringing net emissions to zero simply is not possible.
By then, the technology’s advocates promise, biological sequestration will be joined by programs that capture emissions as they are released or pull them out of the air to be pumped into deep subterranean shafts – out of sight and out of mind.
Next comes the ratification process; 55 countries, representing at least 55% of global emissions, will need to ratify the agreement to enable it to enter into force.
And the rich world does have a moral obligation to move first and faster – with policies, technologies, and finance – to reduce the emissions that cause global warming.
The Climate Vulnerable Forum represents a tiny share of global emissions.
We need the industrialized countries and the giants of the developing world to redouble their efforts to reduce their emissions, so that global warming can be limited to 1.5 degrees.
Either technology will depend on a national electricity grid that uses low-emission forms of power generation, such as wind, solar, nuclear, or coal-fired plants that capture and store the carbon-dioxide emissions.
Instead of discussing how ineffective public transport and polluted air was making life worse for billions of people, the talk centered on carbon trading, emissions trajectories, and the industrialization of China.
Oil-producing developing countries should consider whether their resources have an economic future, given diminishing scope for emissions.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of turning the US into a good global citizen is cutting back on its grossly excessive greenhouse gas emissions – roughly five times the global per capita average.
Obama needs to make the US a leader in reducing emissions.
On one hand, because it covered only those countries projected to emit roughly half of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions by mid-century, it was not an effective long-run safeguard against the dangers of global warming.
On the other hand, because it required significant and expensive short-run cuts in emissions by industrial countries, it threatened to impose large immediate costs on the American, European, and Japanese economies.
BackNext