Example collocations logo

Pollution in sentence

1001 examples of Pollution in a sentence

Second, no infrastructure project should be pursued without careful consideration of both its financial costs and benefits and its ecological impact, such as air pollution and destruction of ecosystems.
We recognize that the UK government must use all means at its disposal – including tax levers – to discourage pollution, but we believe that such measures must be linked to a long-term strategy for change.
It includes vital targets, such as mitigating ocean acidification, securing habitat and species protections, reducing pollution substantially, and ending illegal fishing and subsidies that lead to overfishing.
Air pollution, the world’s biggest environmental problem, has declined dramatically.
Though there has been a small uptick in outdoor air pollution, the much larger problem of indoor air pollution – cooking and keeping warm with open and polluting fires – has declined precipitously.
Since 1960, the risk of dying from all types of air pollution has been more than halved.
As light pollution covers more of the planet, we are losing one of our oldest connections to nature: the ancient ability to gaze at the stars.
Air Pollution’s True CostsPARIS – Air pollution takes years off people’s lives.
Air pollution can be produced both outdoors and indoors.
As economies develop and start to electrify, motorize, and urbanize, outdoor air pollution becomes the bigger issue.
A new OECD report, The Economic Consequences of Outdoor Air Pollution, estimates that outdoor air pollution will cause 6-9 million premature deaths annually by 2060, compared to three million in 2010.
Cumulatively, more than 200 million people will die prematurely in the next 45 years as a result of air pollution.
In per capita terms, mortality is also set to reach high levels in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus region, and other parts of Asia, such as South Korea, where aging populations are highly vulnerable to air pollution.
The impact of air pollution is often discussed in dollar terms.
The direct market impact of this pollution in terms of lower worker productivity, higher health spending, and lower crop yields, could exceed 1% of GDP, or $2.6 trillion, annually by 2060.
Massive as they are, however, the dollar figures do not reflect the true costs of air pollution.
So the OECD examined myriad economic studies on air pollution to quantify what people’s health is worth to them.
Using well-established techniques, these “willingness-to-pay” figures were converted into an overall value of premature deaths caused by outdoor air pollution, as illustrated, for example, in the OECD’s Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies.
By that measure, the global cost of premature deaths caused by outdoor air pollution would reach a staggering $18-25 trillion a year by 2060.
It is time for governments to stop fussing about the costs of efforts to limit air pollution and start worrying about the much larger costs of allowing it to continue unchecked.
In a 2009 study, scientists concluded that, by crossing any of nine “planetary boundaries” – climate change, biodiversity loss, disruption of nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, land use, freshwater extraction, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution – humans would increase the risk of fundamentally changing the Earth system.
But now they realize that local security forces are not enough to protect their citizens, and that the safety of people everywhere depends on internationally coordinated efforts to combat terrorism, pollution, infectious diseases, illegal drugs, and weapons of mass destruction, and to promote human rights, democracy, and development.
While we may lament the loss of manufacturing jobs through “outsourcing,” we certainly do not lament exporting massive amounts of pollution to China.
Air and water pollution, for example, can be addressed only by more state intervention, at both the central and local levels.
The fight against smog and water pollution plays to the country’s strength: the availability of huge domestic savings to finance the necessary investment in pollution-abatement equipment.
The dilemma for China’s leaders is that meeting the need for more in pollution control and infrastructure makes it more difficult to achieve their goal of shifting the country’s economic-growth model from one based on investment and exports to one based on consumption.
But more consumption today would further aggravate the pollution problem.
From 2004 to 2012, clean-energy investment originating from non-OECD countries soared from $4.9 billion to $72.6 billion – almost half of the global total – presumably based on their recognition that decreased pollution implies vast environmental and health benefits.
Yet ocean bio-systems are under threat from acidification, pollution, and over-exploitation.
In the popular mind, science is blamed for deadly weapons and environmental pollution, even if the decisions to produce weapons are political, not scientific in nature, and the main reason for pollution is the profit motive, not scientific progress.
BackNext