It does too little to cut global emissions, and it requires too few countries to cut their emissions growth.

Is it really necessary for us to cut all emissions?

The secret behind the cut in emissions was economic decline.

An army of pundits tells us that we need to cut emissions, and cut them immediately and drastically.

The world has tried with little success to cut carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

This increase has no separate climate effect, since we ve already promised to cut emissions by 20 .

Why not do both invest in R D, but still promise to cut carbon emissions now?

Campaigners and the media claim that we should cut our CO2 emissions to save the polar bear.

A Global Apollo Program would help the world reduce its CO2 emissions and cut its energy bills.

Why not do both invest in R amp D, but still promise to cut carbon emissions now?

Japan issued a challenge, agreeing to cut CO2 emissions by 25 by 2020 if other nations follow.

This would not cut carbon emissions spectacularly, but nor would it be a spectacular waste of public funds.

At the Rio summit in 1992, we promised to cut emissions by 2000, yet overshot the target by 12 .

Just before the meeting, China announced a substantial cut in the increase, although not the level, of its emissions.

Dutch political leaders had been planning to cut emissions by up to 17 percent within the next five years.

The state already was on course to cut carbon emissions since the passage in 2006 of Assembly Bill 32.

If countries decide to cut their emissions, they will have to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, in particular oil.

At the same time, carbon dioxide emissions are rising the European Union's target is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 8 by 2010 but with current policies, only 0.5 will be achieved.

But the recently House passed Waxman Markey bill proposes that the US only cut emissions by 3.6 of 1990 baseline levels.

In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing.

Switching off our lights and promising to cut carbon emissions may make us feel momentarily virtuous, but that s all it does.

Seventeen years ago, industrialized nations promised with great fanfare in Rio de Janeiro to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.

Countries that cut their emissions would, in effect, be subsidizing their competitors growth, not necessarily reducing the speed of global warming.

Cut. Cut. That won't do.

The negotiations are mainly about which groups of countries should cut their emissions, by how much, how fast, and relative to which baseline year. Countries are being pressed to cut emissions by 2020 by certain percentage targets, without much serious discussion about how the cuts can be achieved.

To cut emissions sharply, the US will need to switch over this decade to a new fleet of automobiles, powered increasingly by electricity.

Cut!

Cut!

Now, even lower emissions!

Yet the current cut emissions now before it is too late mindset neglects the fact that the world has no sensible short term solutions.

If we are not serious about upgrading our industrial structure, we will fail when it comes time to fulfill our commitments to cut emissions.

While the Bush Administration remains skeptical about the science behind such projections, some state and local governments are enacting measures to cut CO2 emissions.

The negotiations are mainly about which groups of countries should cut their emissions, by how much, how fast, and relative to which baseline year.

Countries are being pressed to cut emissions by 2020 by certain percentage targets, without much serious discussion about how the cuts can be achieved.

At this low price, companies have little incentive to cut back on their CO2 emissions and little faith that a market based incentive will return.

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.

It is, again, worse than we thought, and, despite our failing models, we will gamble on knowing just what to do cut CO2 emissions dramatically.

At this low price, companies have little incentive to cut back on their CO2 emissions and little faith that a market based incentive will return.

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.

Lady Cut.

Boxer cut.

Rough Cut.

Industrial emissions cause air pollution.

Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions, but it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.

The so called emissions trading system aims to control carbon emissions by allocating tradable permits.