Sentences with phrase «if global civilization»
• If global civilization can not continue to adjust to these climate changes in an evolutionary manner, then revolutionary means (economic depression, famine, mass migration, unilateral seizure of resources, unilateral efforts at geo - engineering) leave us and our descendants vulnerable to perpetual warfare, with ever - increasing chances of unrestrained nuclear exchanges.
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ Not exact matches
Now, civilization is at a crossroads, Grinspoon says: If global warming and other Earth - altering phenomena continue unchecked, humanity could die out.
He argued that the phenomenon of globalization is bringing new pressures of such magnitude that they could easily result in disastrous human conflicts, and that a global war of civilizations can be avoided only if world leaders accept the multi-civilizational character of global politics, and learn to co-operate.
If it is the case that civilizations are, in their roots, dependent on the quality of religion, and if it is the case that America, by the cunning hand of Providence, has been thrust into the leadership of a global civilization, then we should attend to the question of whether the religion that guides us is genuinely universaIf it is the case that civilizations are, in their roots, dependent on the quality of religion, and if it is the case that America, by the cunning hand of Providence, has been thrust into the leadership of a global civilization, then we should attend to the question of whether the religion that guides us is genuinely universaif it is the case that America, by the cunning hand of Providence, has been thrust into the leadership of a global civilization, then we should attend to the question of whether the religion that guides us is genuinely universal.
Even if there were no deniers around, I can't see humanity transforming our entire global civilization from one based on fossil fuels to one based on renewable energy sources — especially not in the required couple of decades.
Anyone who thinks that there is any genuine «debate» about either the reality of anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, or the grave threat not only to human civilization but to all life on earth if unmitigated, «business as usual» anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change are permitted to continue, is profoundly misinformed.
As long as the collapse of civilization is a potential (if unlikely) consequence of global warming (climate change leads to agricultural collapse leads to war leads to the end of civilization), it's worth paying those premiums.
Gore's call to «make peace with the planet» requires an integrated awareness and action against both global warming and global warring, simultaneously — Gore describes the problem as huge, but in limiting it to civilian activities, not including military madness and mayhem, it is not huge enough — if a patient has both diabetes and severe trauma, both conditions must be treated now — militization trumps civilization in the headlines of today and tomorrow — if the truth is that both global warming everywhere and global warring anywhere are linked in the human biosphere, and if that truth is inconvenient to Mr Gore and the civilian scope of his campaign against global warming, lethal consequences for both humans and other species will continue — in cinematic terms, the great «An Inconvenient Truth» must be blended and coordinated with the great «Why We Fight»
Gore's thesis is fourfold: (1) Global Warming is real, (2) Global Warming is a potential catastrophe to human civilization, (3) we CAN do something about it if we act both quickly and responsibly and (4) we are all in this together; it is not (or should not be) a political debate.
Why then, if the risks to the planet and civilization are so enormous, does the Stern Review emphasize attempting to keep global warming at 3 °C by stabilizing CO2e at 550 ppm (what it describes at one point as «the upper limit to the stabilisation range»)?
Moreover, rational people must accept that even if America commits economic suicide and Western civilization descends into feckless nihilism, the global warming alarmists» predictions of doomsday will not change anything.
New calculations by the author indicate that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036, crossing a threshold that will harm human civilization.
NASA's James Hansen declared that if the world did not change its way, and kept emitting CO2 in the «business - as - usual» (BAU) manner, global warming would skyrocket, threatening all of civilization.
It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large - scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.
In fact there is no evidence that the US press understands the policy significance for the US if climate change is understood as a civilization challenging global distributive justice problem.
If we allow sustained global average temperature increases of more than 1 degree Celsius, we will suffer irreversible climate destabilization and a planet largely inhospitable to human civilization.
The results, published in the journal Earth's Future, point to two possible pathways: 1) a relatively steady but substantial rise in sea levels even if we sharply reduce global emissions, flooding 100 million people's homes worldwide by the end of the century, and 2) a wild - card world that could jeopardize civilization itself if fossil fuels continue to dominate.
If yes, big monies will be required to fund Monsanto so that a new class of global - warming pesticides can be brought to market in time to save civilization and our human species.