By: Emma Gaudreau-Lloyd, Staff WriterApril 15, 2018, 10:21:04By: Emma L. Lloyd, Staff ReporterApril 15,, 2018, 11:50:51The US, Canada and Australia have set aside $30 billion to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming and to reduce soil erosion, but that’s not enough to combat climate change, according to new research published by the University of Queensland.

According to the study, published in Nature Communications, the US alone has committed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by about 5.3 million tonnes annually.

But by 2020, this would leave the US with about 6.4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions.

“It’s not going to be enough to stop global warming, and it’s not likely to stop the effects of climate change in Australia,” Associate Professor Steve Jones, a co-author of the study and associate professor of Earth systems science at the University, told TheWrap.

“We need to do more to protect the environment, but the US and Canada are making a really big commitment to reducing their carbon emissions.”

Australia’s commitment to tackling climate change was one of the main talking points for the United Nations climate change conference in Lima, Peru last month.

Australia is currently one of two countries to meet the target of reducing its emissions by 80 percent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, according the U.N. report.

Canada, meanwhile, has made significant progress in reducing emissions over the past decade, according its new Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP).

The report found that emissions have been falling by 0.4 percent per year since 2020.

Australia has the second-lowest emissions per capita among developed countries.

Australia’s national parks and the Great Barrier Reef are among the most-polluted places in the world, according National Parks Australia.

But that’s just the beginning, according, as climate change is expected to worsen existing issues and bring more challenges to a region already struggling with rising sea levels, drought, wildfires, and droughts.

“Our national parks are already experiencing issues due to climate change,” Jones said.

“But we need to look at what those challenges are and how we can work with other countries and the private sector to address them.”

In the meantime, the study points out that a carbon price on carbon could help reduce climate change impacts.

A carbon tax would be designed to offset the increased carbon emissions from energy and transportation industries.

The report suggests a price of $100 per tonne of CO₂, with a range of $60 to $300 per ton.

“The cost of doing this would be very low compared to other existing policies that have been in place,” Jones added.

“And we think that this could be an effective tool for governments and businesses to make investments in renewable energy.”

Jones said he thinks the price will be the “most effective tool” because it is expected that countries will continue to implement carbon pricing even if they do not have a national carbon pricing scheme in place.

The study notes that while carbon pricing could be the most effective tool in reducing carbon emissions, it could also lead to unintended consequences, as countries that choose to implement it could create an incentive for companies to reduce their carbon footprint.

“When you put a price on CO⁂, it is unlikely that a company will be able to avoid CO⃂ emissions,” Jones told The Wrap.

“They might just be more likely to move operations to countries with lower CO  emissions.”

Jones is also skeptical about the value of carbon taxes in other countries, including the United Kingdom, where carbon taxes are already being considered.

“There’s very little empirical evidence that carbon taxes work in countries where they haven’t been tried,” Jones wrote.

“They’re unlikely to be effective because of the economic and political challenges that governments face in achieving their target of zero emissions.

It is not clear that a tax would actually help them.”

The study also found that countries with the lowest emissions could have the biggest impacts on climate change.

“If you look at how many times COℂ increases have occurred, countries with highest emissions have had the most times,” Jones explained.

“That is not a very likely scenario in the future.”