According to the author, polluting industries should fight against carbon pollution.

But just now how much warmer it will get depends on how deeply countries cut carbon emissions.

But the most sensible form of adaptation is surely to adapt our energy systems to emit less carbon pollution.

Phytoplankton live at the ocean surface, where they pull carbon dioxide into the ocean while giving off oxygen.

The astronauts will suffer from a carbon-dioxide headache when they exercise in one place for a long time.

The idea is to get people fit and reduce their carbon footprint.

This is how much temperatures would rise by 2100 even if nations live up to the initial Paris promises to reduce carbon emissions; this rise could still put coastal cities under water and drive over half of all species to extinction.

Warming changes key characteristics of the ocean and can affect phytoplankton growth, since they need not only sunlight and carbon dioxide to grow, but also nutrients.

When the polluting industries argue that we've lost the battle to control carbon pollution and have no choice but to adapt, it's a nonsense designed to make the case for business as usual.

When these organisms die, they bury carbon in the deep ocean, an important process that helps to regulate the global climate.

Without gravity to help circulate air, the carbon dioxide you exhale has a tendency to form an invisible cloud around you head.

You can end up with what astronauts call a carbon-dioxide headache.

We must cut carbon emissions by 80% from their 2006 levels by 2020, stabilize the world's population at eight billion by 2040, completely remove poverty, and restore forests and soils.

Mr Obama's plan to curb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (排放), though necessary, will be far from cost-free, whatever his sunny speeches on the subject might suggest.

According to the author, Obama's plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions will by no means be inexpensive

And it would take an average of 65 years for the reduced carbon emissions from a new energy-efficient home to make up for the resources lost by destroying an old one.

carbon emissions come from heating, cooling and powering our homes, offices and other buildings

However, David Reay, professor of carbon management, argues that, although microwaves use a great deal of energy, their emissions are minor compared to those from cars.

Popping food into the microwave for a couple of minutes may seem utterly harmless, but Europe's stock of these quick-cooking ovens emit as much carbon as nearly 7 million cars, a new study has found.

While alternative estimates of the damage from carbon emissions differ, and it's especially hard to reckon the likely costs of possible catastrophic climate events, most estimates suggest substantial negative effects.

We need very broad participation to fully address the global tragedy that results when countries fail to take into account the negative impact of their carbon emissions on the rest of the world.

Unless renewables become cheap enough that substantial carbon deposits are left underground for a very long time, if not forever, the planet will likely be exposed to potentially catastrophic climate risks.

The result would be higher emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The reason is that when carbon is priced, those emissions reductions that are least costly to implement will happen first.

The hope is that the success of COP 21 opens the door to future international agreement on carbon prices.

The International Monetary Fund calculates that countries can generate substantial fiscal revenues by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and levying carbon charges that capture the domestic damage caused by emissions.

Setting the right carbon price will therefore efficiently align the costs paid by carbon users with the true social opportunity cost of using carbon.

Pricing carbon proves the most economical way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to maximize global welfare, every country's carbon pricing should reflect not only the purely domestic damage from emissions, but also the damage to foreign countries.

If not corrected by the appropriate carbon price, low fossil fuel prices are not accurately signaling to markets the true social profitability of clean energy.

Economic reasoning shows that the least expensive way for each country is to put a price on carbon emissions.

Direct subsidies to research and development have been adopted by some governments but are a poor substitute for a carbon price: they do only part of the job, leaving in place market incentives to over-use fossil fuels and thereby add to the stock of atmospheric greenhouse gases without regard to the collateral ( ' , 附带的) costs.

Co-author Amy Zanne thinks that users probably range from climate-change researchers wanting to estimate how much carbon is stored in biomass, to foresters looking for information on different grades of timber.

By raising relative demand for clean energy sources, a carbon price would also help align the market return to clean-energy innovation with its social return, spurring the refinement of existing technologies and the development of new ones.

And it would raise the demand for technologies such as carbon capture and storage, spurring their further development.

Agreement on an international carbon-price floor would be a good starting point in that process.

Action to restore appropriate price incentives, notably through corrective carbon pricing, is urgently needed to lower the risk of irreversible and potentially devastating effects of climate change.

A tax on upstream carbon sources is one easy way to put a price on carbon emissions, although some countries may wish to use other methods, such as emissions trading schemes.

It will motivate all nations to reduce carbon emissions.

Politicians may tackle polluters while scientists do battle with carbon emissions.

Despite mournful polar bears and charts showing carbon emissions soaring, most people find it hard to believe that global warming will affect them personally.

Left alone, it was assumed, the world's rain forests would not only flourish but might even rescue us from disaster by absorbing the excess carbon dioxide and other planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Some scientists believe that the rise in carbon levels means that the Amazon and other rain forests in Asia and Africa may go from being assets in the battle against rising temperatures to liabilities

billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year - making forests the leading source of greenhouse gases.

Runaway fires pour even more carbon into the air, which increases temperatures, starting the whole vicious cycle all over again

Each burning season in the Amazon, fires deliberately set by frontier settlers and developers hurl up almost half a billion metric tons of carbon a year, placing Brazil among the top five contributors to greenhouse gases in the world.

carbon emissions are the leading cause of current global warming

The author argues that the rising carbon levels in rain forests may turn them into a major source of greenhouse gases.

Its inability to curb the carbon emissions from industries

For a start, all animals, such as cows, pigs and sheep, always gas limed methane, which is the second most common green house gas after carbon dioxide.

Many environmental experts now believe that methane is more responsible for global warming than carbon dioxide

But its surface has been cooked and dried by an ocean of carbon dioxide, trapped in the burning death grip of a runaway greenhouse effect.

Direct subsidies to research and development have been adopted by some governments but are a poor substitute for a carbon price: they do only part of the job, leaving in place market incentives to over-use fossil fuels and thereby add to the stock of atmo

Grazing herds stimulate microbial activity in the soil, helping to capture water and separate carbon.

Heating this chemical compound drives off carbon dioxide gas, leaving calcium oxide.

Politicians may tackle polluters while scientists do battle with carbon emissions .

The carbon that we've put into the atmosphere keeps having a warming effect for 100 years, so we have to cut back rapidly now, because it would take a long time to work its way through into a response by the atmosphere.

The country is also planning to reduce its carbon footprint by 80-95% by 2050, sparking a shift to green energy in the country.

But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture, so they grow and thrive, restoring the forest's capacity to pull carbon from the air.

Even as we humans count on forests to soak up a good share of the carbon dioxide we produce, we are threatening their ability to do so.

Helping forests flourish as valuable \carbon sinks\ long into the future may require reducing their capacity to absorb carbon now.

Only recently have they come to see the vital part forests will have to play in storing carbon.

The climate change we are hastening could one day leave us with forests that emit more carbon than they absorb.

The state's proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest.

The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber or burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels.