Example collocations logo

Emissions in sentence

2828 examples of Emissions in a sentence

Slow growth of greenhouse-gas emissions in rapidly-growing economies must be accompanied by credible promises to deliver massive amounts of assistance in the mighty tasks of industrialization, education, and urbanization that China, India, Mexico, Brazil, and many other developing countries face.
Second, the world’s industrial core must create incentives for its energy industries to undertake the investments in new technologies that will move us by mid-century to an economic structure that is light on carbon emissions and heavy on carbon sequestration.
Standard economic theory suggests that you can affect it by taxing some transactions – such as, say, greenhouse-gas emissions – or giving money to certain groups of people, while letting the market do its thing.
The choices, singly or in combination, are: 1) nothing (the current response); 2) mitigation (reducing emissions of greenhouse gases); 3) attempted adaptation to the ongoing climate changes; and 4) geoengineering.
SRM might be needed in a planetary emergency – say, if continued warming rapidly accelerates ice-sheet melting and sea-level rise, or if it accelerates methane and CO2 emissions from thawing tundra, which would then accelerate the warming itself.
This offers tremendous economic opportunities, if we can just put a price on the dangers to the planet of current carbon emissions.
Simply put, by controlling deforestation we can significantly affect the carbon emissions that cause climate change.
Indeed, the US is the world’s largest producer of bioethanol, which – along with the production of shale gas – has helped reduce foreign oil imports by at least 25%, while lowering carbon dioxide emissions and creating local jobs.
Biofuel technology kills four birds with one stone: It improves energy security, recycles waste, reduces greenhouse-gas emissions, and produces jobs (often in rural areas).
High carbon prices are a crucial policy tool to drive emissions reductions and limit harmful climate change.
In fact, according to the UN itself, the agreed cuts in CO2 emissions would produce only 1% of the reduction needed to keep the increase in global temperature within 2º Celsius (3.6º Fahrenheit) of pre-industrial levels.
Scary climate stories rely on a simple narrative: more CO2 means more environmental damage and death – and the only way to address it is to cut carbon emissions.
Investors require above-market rates for renewable power or similar compensation that reflects the social benefits of emissions free energy.
Many people – including America’s new president – believe that global warming is the preeminent issue of our time, and that cutting CO2 emissions is one of the most virtuous things we can do.
Make no mistake: global warming is real, and it is caused by manmade CO2 emissions.
Put another way, for each person saved from malaria by cutting CO2 emissions, direct malaria policies could have saved 36,000.
For example, adequately maintained levees and better evacuation services, not lower carbon emissions, would have minimized the damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans.
Some believe Obama should follow the lead of the European Union, which has committed itself to the ambitious goal of cutting carbon emissions by 20% below 1990 levels within 12 years by using renewable energy.
The Kyoto Protocol will cut CO2 emissions from industrialized countries by 30% below what it would have been in 2010 and by 50% in 2050.
Instead, we should be concentrating on investments in making energy without CO2 emissions viable for our descendants.
Rather than investing hundreds of billions of dollars in short-term, ineffective cuts in CO2 emissions, we should be investing tens of billions in research, leaving our children and grandchildren with cheaper and cleaner energy.
This puts a new debate center stage: how to reconcile increased action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with strong economic growth.
So the primary question that we need to ask is not whether we can reduce emissions, but how public policy can help to achieve these core goals while reducing emissions and building a more climate-resilient economy.
The retail giant Wal-Mart is driving emissions reduction throughout its supply chain.
To be sure, there are still holdouts, like Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who replaced a carbon tax with a plan to tax the country’s citizens in order to pay polluters to cut emissions.
As a policy, this is inequitable, inefficient, and unlikely to lower emissions at a pace that is sufficient to meet the conditions of the global climate-change agreement expected to be reached in Paris in December.
These risks include natural disasters, more extreme weather, efforts by governments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and the knock-on effect of a technological revolution in renewables, energy efficiency, and alternative technologies.
After committing to a 17% reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 – and despite his declaration that he would not tolerate inaction in this area – he simply stopped raising the issue after the Republicans’ sweeping victory in the November 2010 mid-term elections.
The consultancy McKinsey & Company notes that a number of key energy efficiency technologies for buildings offer payback periods of less than a year and could have a dramatic impact on greenhouse-gas emissions.
But he will not be able to overturn the EPA’s regulation of CO2 emissions.
BackNext