emissions

They're heroes for braving the dangerous roads every day and saving the planet from more choking carbon emissions.

The European economies that have reduced their emissions according to the Kyoto protocol have been doing fine.

We don't limit the ability to own a vehicle with bad emissions or without safety equipment.

Our work reduces carbon emissions and improves the reliability and efficiency of the electrical grid.

Calculate the dollar amount per pound of CO2 released that pays for enough tree planting or subsidizes enough renewables to offset the emissions.

The pollution gets shifted to the power plants, but the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants are often better than those from cars.

Fixing the 172s and Cherokees doesn't move the needle much on TEL emissions.

There are lots of capital-intensive requirements such as adhering to safety, toxicity, and emissions regulations and performing the necessary testing to gain certification.

The positive effects far outweigh the adverse effects, especially when you can start using things like catalytic converters to make their emissions less harmful.

Maybe it's a part of an environmental strategy (going 120 km/h uses much more fuel than 100 km/h and thus leads to greater emissions).

I've been wondering whether population is the right statistic to correlate greenhouse gas emissions with.

I suspect that reducing our emissions is actually not just cheap but cost negative.

If you want to convert fossil fuel X to something to convert to fossil fuel Y, you may be able to "win" over the current situation but you will very likely never get to get zero emissions in the system as a whole, because of the first step.