Sentences with phrase «argue human greenhouse gas emissions»

Oil companies are expected to argue human greenhouse gas emissions were the main driver of recent global warming and that it is a problem, but their legal filings contest their liability and the use of courts to settle what's considered a global matter.

Not exact matches

Exxon has argued against all the other shareholder proposals as well, including a «policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity»; a policy articulating Exxon's «respect for and commitment to the human right to water»; «a report discussing possible long term risks to the company's finances and operations posed by the environmental, social and economic challenges associated with the oil sands»; a report of «known and potential environmental impacts» and «policy options» to address the impacts of the company's «fracturing operations»; a report of recommendations on how Exxon can become an «environmentally sustainable energy company»; and adoption of «quantitative goals... for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions.»

Since levels of greenhouse gases have continued to rise throughout the period, some skeptics have argued that the recent pattern undercuts the theory that global warming in the industrial era has been caused largely by human - made emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative benefits of nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..

As for the ethics of all of this, Donald A. Brown of Pennsylvania State University argues that the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases are morally obligated to curb carbon dioxide and similar emissions based on the level of certainty that is already established on the impacts of those emissions — most of which will be in poorer places with small contributions to the human - caused gas buildup in the atmosphere.

To argue, or even suggest, that [human action, including alterations in landscapes and emissions of greenhouse gases] «can»» or even doesn't, or even «may not» affect climate is in essence to argue against the very basic of geophysics and chemistry itself.

It is not the first such optimistic study: researchers have lately argued that the 2 °C target set in Paris is possible, if humans start reducing greenhouse gas emissions towards zero, and do so within 40 years.

But it is true that some of the fossil - fuel funded groups that formerly argued that there is no global warming have reacted to criticism by changing their argument to «the climate is always changing,» as if that somehow disproves the scientific consensus that human greenhouse - gas emissions are causing dangerous warming.

To counter that claim, the Justice Department argues that» [t] he basic connection between human induced greenhouse gas emissions and observed climate itself has not been established.»

Many climate skeptics argue that the most likely scenario for global warming is that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause mild warming, a geographic mixture of winners and losers, and what problems arise can be met by adaptation.

This table lists all the names I've found who have signed any of the open letters or declarations expressing skepticism of the IPCC's findings, of climate science generally, of the «consensus» on human - induced warming, and / or arguing against any need for immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.