Example collocations logo

Pollution in sentence

1001 examples of Pollution in a sentence

The US has almost totally backed away from the global fight against pollution, and, through uncontrolled growth, solidifies its position as the world’s leading polluter.
Such decoupling can occur only if we do away with the illusion that pollution is cost-free.
What they often overlook is that nature is the world’s original infrastructure, and nature-based solutions can help cities address some of the biggest planning challenges they face, such as air and water pollution, water scarcity, and extreme heat, all of which are now being exacerbated by climate change.
Street trees, research shows, can help reduce air pollution – the single biggest threat to human health, especially in urban areas, according to the World Health Organization – by filtering fine particulate matter, such as that emitted by internal-combustion engines.
Urban areas may also need well-designed, sustainably built infrastructure to manage air and water, and integrated clean-energy systems and efficient public-transit options to help reduce pollution and carbon emissions.
The technology and infrastructure that have allowed cities to flourish in the past carried high costs, from pollution to flooding to biodiversity loss.
Thanks to such monitoring, Foshan’s municipal- and county-level governments recognized a dramatic restructuring in global supply chains and responded accordingly, such as by improving housing and health care, providing such social services even to migrant labor, and addressing excessive pollution.
As Foshan has proved, cities have a unique capacity to support growth – including by fostering competition, advancing innovation, and phasing out obsolete industries – while addressing social challenges, tackling pollution, and creating a labor force that can cope with technological disruption.
But this urban-based, export-led growth model also created more challenges than it can now handle: property bubbles, traffic jams, pollution, unsustainable local government debt, land-related corruption, and social unrest related to unequal access to social welfare.
Let the winds blow, the storms rage, the rain pour, the sea levels rise, and the air pollution kill, while denying that it could possibly have any relationship to humans greenhouse-gas emissions.
The Hartwell group proposes that we adopt three basic climate-related goals: ensuring secure, affordable energy supplies for everyone (which means developing alternatives to fossil fuels); ensuring that economic development doesn’t wreak environmental havoc (which means not just reducing CO2 emissions, but also cutting indoor pollution from burning biomass, reducing ozone, and protecting tropical forests); and making sure that we are prepared to cope with whatever climate changes may occur, man-made or natural (which means recognizing, at last, the importance of adapting to climate change).
To reconcile taxation with an overall economic strategy that seeks to maximize all citizens’ wellbeing, the tax system should adhere to three central principles: tax bad things (like pollution), rather than good things (like work); design taxes to cause the least possible distortion in the economy; and maintain a progressive rate structure, with richer individuals paying a larger share of their income.
The problems bedeviling the industry include pollution from emissions, increasing competition (particularly from communications technology, which has made business travel less necessary), air traffic control delays and inefficiencies, expanding noise restrictions, safety and security concerns, and an overall business environment highly dependent on fuel prices.
The object should be to accelerate and vet the next generation of clean-energy technologies, as well as to meet the level of demand reductions that will be necessary to reduce greenhouse-gas pollution.
Of course, fossil fuels, mainly coal and natural gas, remain important, but their extraction and use is tied to groundwater pollution and carbon-dioxide emissions, especially in North America and China.
Inhabitants of densely packed urban areas in emerging economies often face both indoor and outdoor pollution, and are less likely to have access to adequate nutrition.
In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars – the main source of urban air pollution – up an astonishing 65% from a year ago.
Pruitt’s determination to reverse the EPA’s achievements in reducing air and water pollution, especially regulations adopted during Barack Obama’s presidency, bespeaks Trump’s own resentment of Obama.
Outdoor air pollution – caused by fossil-fuel combustion, not by global warming – contributed to 30% of all deaths cited in the study.
Likewise, overcoming the burden of indoor air pollution will happen only when people can use kerosene, propane, and grid-based electricity.
If the Global Vulnerability Monitor’s recommendation to cut back on fossil fuels were taken seriously, the result would be slower economic growth and continued reliance on dung, cardboard, and other low-grade fuels, thereby prolonging the suffering that results from indoor air pollution.
When confronted with their exaggerations, the authors claimed that “if you reduce hazardous air pollution, it is difficult to not also reduce warming emissions.”
But, for both indoor and outdoor air pollution, the opposite is more likely true: lower carbon emissions would mean more air pollution deaths.
Moreover, the focus on GDP creates conflicts: political leaders are told to maximize it, but citizens also demand that attention be paid to enhancing security, reducing air, water, and noise pollution, and so forth – all of which might lower GDP growth.
Moreover, by putting a price on pollution, governments can generate revenue for investments like clean energy, schools, and health care, making it a double win.
Some 40 countries – including Canada – are also putting a price on carbon pollution, and more governments are planning to implement similar schemes soon.
To be sure, putting a price on carbon pollution must become part of a broader set of actions to future-proof our economies and societies.
By pricing carbon pollution and harnessing our collective abilities, we can address the former and seize the latter.
To the extent that we invest across sectors and regions to improve our carbon productivity (GDP per unit of carbon emitted), we will weaken the pollution constrain on global growth.
Black carbon and tropospheric ozone pollution are traditional air pollutants, which together kill nearly seven million people a year and destroy hundreds of millions of tons of food crops.
BackNext