Example collocations logo

Emissions in sentence

2828 examples of Emissions in a sentence

Accounting for a reduction of 50 Mt of CO2 per year, America’s 30,000 wind turbines reduce emissions by just one-tenth the amount that natural gas does.
Biofuels reduce emissions by only ten Mt, and solar panels by a paltry three Mt.
Yet its per capita CO2 emissions have fallen by less than half of the reduction achieved in the US – even in percentage terms, the US is now doing better.
The relatively small reduction in emissions achieved through wind power costs more than $3.3 billion annually, and far smaller reductions from ethanol (biofuels) and solar panels cost at least $8.5 and $3 billion annually.
What little chance there was of the US backing any global plan to limit or tax carbon emissions has disappeared.
Yet tapping the Bowland Shale could reignite the UK economy and deliver huge cuts in CO2 emissions.
At the same time, the UK Parliament has approved stringent new measures to reduce carbon emissions by 2020, with the biggest CO2 cuts by far to come from an increase of more than 800% in offshore wind power over the next seven years.
We are focusing on insignificant – but very costly – green policies that make us feel good, while ignoring or actively discouraging policies that would dramatically reduce emissions and make economic sense.
Assuming complete success for the UK’s scheme, offshore wind power could produce more than 10% of the country’s electricity in 2020 and reduce its CO2 emissions by up to 22Mt, or 5%, per year.
If the UK sold its shale gas both domestically and abroad to replace coal, it could reduce local air pollution significantly and reduce global carbon emissions by 170Mt, or more than a third of UK carbon emissions.
With good regulation, during the coming decade it can do the most good worldwide in terms of cutting CO2 emissions and improving living conditions.
At the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 189 countries, including the United States, China, India, and all European countries signed on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and agreed to stabilize greenhouse-gas emissions “at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
Instead, the Copenhagen Accord merely asked countries for voluntary pledges to cut their emissions by specific amounts.
The first ambiguity has been resolved by the decision to aim for a level of emissions that would cap the increase in average surface temperature at 2º Celsius above the pre-industrial level.
The London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute has analyzed the submissions made by all 154 countries and concluded that even if they are all implemented, global carbon emissions will rise from their current level of 50 billion tons per year to 55-60 billion tons by 2030.
But, to have even a 50% chance of keeping to the 2ºC limit, annual carbon emissions need to come down to 36 billion tons.
The level of emissions in the atmosphere today already means that we have a 10% chance of exceeding 2ºC, even if we stopped adding further emissions right now (which is not going to happen).
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock industry is the second largest source of greenhouse-gas emissions, ahead of the entire transport sector.
A Carbon Price-and-Rebate PlanPARIS – So far, international climate talks have failed to find a mechanism that will successfully reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol attempted to use a system of tradable quotas to establish a price on carbon-dioxide emissions, but foundered after the United States and several emerging countries refused to join.
As a result, the US and several emerging economies made commitments to reduce emissions for the first time.
We propose a carbon “price-and-rebate” mechanism, which simultaneously sets a price on emissions above a certain threshold and defines how the revenues raised should be used.
Our price-and-rebate mechanism is inspired by the “bonus/malus” scheme in France, in which buyers of new cars are taxed or given a bonus depending on the vehicle’s CO2 emissions.
In our system, a country exceeding the worldwide average for per capita emissions would pay a specified amount on every ton of CO2 (or its equivalent) above a set threshold.
Countries with lower-than-average emissions would be compensated for polluting less.
This system would initially benefit countries with the lowest per capita emissions, meaning that most of the funds would flow towards the least-developed countries.
Once it is fully operational, the price-and-rebate mechanism would encourage all countries to reduce their per capita emissions, thereby reducing the gap between payments and rebates.
A rate of $7-$8 per ton would generate enough revenue to deliver on this promise, with the money flowing to countries with low per capita emissions.
Every citizen in the world would have the same right to emit greenhouse gas, and every country would face the same incentives at the margin to reduce emissions.
The main obstacle to be overcome in establishing such a system will be to convince donor countries’ governments to pay for their carbon emissions.
BackNext