Sentences with phrase «if environmental harm»

If environmental harm and public health impact aren't enough to help someone quit smoking, these high - definition images showing the effects of tobacco in the womb may do the trick.

Not exact matches

For instance, as technological innovations become more able to create economic benefits while minimizing, if not eliminating, environmental harm, the integrated web of global economic relationships may help to hasten the process of global «greening.»

They also asked voters if they thought the process of high volume hydraulic fracturing would cause environmental harm — and 50 % said yes they thought there would be environmental damage.

If the policy of the Minister doesn't take a consistent U-turn, it will ultimately lead to poor quality research and environmental monitoring, which will harm every citizen, not only researchers at Ispra.

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

I think it's very very difficult if not impossible but if countries do intently do something that has environmental harm they should be held accountable if it causes death then the International Criminal Court should be used.

FD: I think it's very very difficult if not impossible but if countries do intently do something that has environmental harm they should be held accountable if it causes death then the International Criminal Court should be used.

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

Or the economically concerned, who fear environmental actions will harm economic sufficiency (jobs) or wealth — as if the environment were totally unnecessary to human life & well - being.

Whereas, if left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely impact all Americans, hitting vulnerable populations hardest, harming productivity in key economic sectors such as construction, agriculture, and tourism, saddling future generations with costly economic and environmental burdens, and imposing additional costs on State and Federal budgets that will further add to the long - term fiscal challenges that we face as a Nation;

Across the country, Sierra Club activists have been raising their voices about a «free trade» scheme that would do more environmental harm than help if it's pushed through the finish line as - is.

If coal ash is an measurable environmental problem of known harm, it is regulated by the EPA.

If there are in fact serious environmental problems with fossil fuels it would be in the public interest to put resources into addressing these problems instead of wasting efforts and money on limited inefficient and costly alternatives which only serve to harm the economy and a failed economy can not properly look after the environment

I remain astonished at the fervour with which greens like Mark defend wind power at all costs, despite growing evidence that it does real environmental harm, rewards the rich at the expense of the poor and does not cut carbon dioxide emissions significantly if at all.

(maybe most of you are too cool to remember that sort of moment... but think of something equally bad like the time you accidentally set something on fire and it started getting out of control...) I think it will be worse than that... Seems like to me we need to be much, much, more certain before we go making policy all over the earth that could actually harm us... or maybe not quite so bad, but really not desirable, harm many developing countries and distract them from addressing real environmental land use and energy production problems that would actually help the environment and save human lives now, today... but keep an eye on the future... not suggesting head in the sand stuff... just let's stop the panic... if you have to panic it's probly too late... most people don't behave terribly rationally while panicing...

Rubbish lying around is unsightly; but worse, if it is washed into waterways and streams, lakes and the ocean, it can do huge environmental harm.

If serious cuts are enacted, the pace of innovation will slow, harming the economy, energy security and global environmental quality.

In environmental matters, small is indeed beautiful as there is definitely a correlation between the amount of stuff used and environmental harm — even if considerable effort is made to do the right thing.

Time to Scrap «Sacrifice» The idea seems so obvious, but it still often seems as if environmental campaigns focus on harms rather than happiness.

If statistics on environmental harm, economic loss and the threat to public health aren't enough to get you or a loved one to stop smoking, perhaps these images might be enough to give a proper nudge in the right direction.

Most, if not all of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination (and in fact most Republican politicians in general) have been arguing that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations are too stringent and harming the economy.

Whether the alleged exposure involves air, water, soil or groundwater, when a plaintiff or group of plaintiffs brings an environmental exposure claim, an experienced California toxic lawyer at our firm will launch a thorough investigation to determine whether an exposure actually occurred and, if so, the extent to which the exposure may have caused the illness or other harms alleged by the plaintiffs.

Thus, the Bill would give children standing to sue the government of New Brunswick (via their parents or guardians) for money, or for other relief, if they suffer harm due to an «environmental hazard.»

If pollutants or other environmental damage done by your company lead to bodily harm or property damage to others, your environmental liability insurance coverage will provide compensation for any accrued costs.

If regional regulations are relatively light, this could lead to environmental harm.