Sentences with phrase «change fuelled debates»

Not exact matches

It will allow debate and discussion around issues such as the implementation of the new fuel poverty strategy in England which is taking effect from 2015, how we can reduce the health impacts of fuel poverty and will explore the effect of the changes to welfare reform.

The European Union needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 to avoid the worst effects of climate change, according to a British government paper, likely to fuel debate on whether deeper cuts are affordable.

Whether it would quell the debate over global cooling - fueled in part by the East Coast's hard winter and the revelation of errors in the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change synthesis report - is less certain.

Yet at this forum, an on - campus debate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology over whether the university should divest the fossil fuel holdings within its $ 11 billion endowment, might not have happened if market forces properly priced the economic and environmental costs of climate change, a theme that Anthony Cortese, the event moderator, alluded to at the outset.

For years the debate over fuel economy has been about making cars smaller and lighter, changes that could put people at greater risk of dying or being injured in crashes.

«Researching Don't Even Think About It, which I see as the most important book published on climate change in the past few years, George Marshall discovered that there has not been a single proposal, debate or even position paper on limiting fossil fuel production put forward during international climate negotiations.

As you might expect in a debate about whether or not the U.S. should make a risky move to perpetuate the use of fossil fuels, some committee members took the opportunity to voice doubt that the constant burning of that energy source was behind the rising temperatures, melting ice sheets, and abnormal weather events most scientists associate with climate change.

The clash between Neste and Greenpeace highlights one of the key ideological debates over climate change: Business and politicians believe that a «technological» fix such as alternative fuels can solve the problem and also generate profits; many environmental groups believe the real solution to global warming lies in reducing consumption.

Combined with the growing understanding that carbon emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels are driving global climate change, the debate is now focused on how to restructure the U.S. transport system to solve these two problems.

A link between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels had been mooted but debate would not move into the political sphere for more than a decade.

Before the show had even gone to air, the program was causing controversy with commentators — myself and others including Clive Hamilton, Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael Ashley — pointing out its format gave the false impression of there being a legitimate scientific debate about fossil fuel burning causing climate change.

While there is overwhelming scientific consensus that heat - trapping gases released by burning fossil fuels are warming the planet (in particular at the poles), the debate shows there is still a fracas over the finer ways in which Earth's climate will change.

«While the future is uncertain, the debate about whether climate change is a material risk for fossil fuel companies is settled.

The pipe would send hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil sands bitumen from Edmonton to the port of Vancouver each day — this at a moment when oil sands production and the pipelines that move it have become the proxy for a debate about climate change and the fossil fuel industries not just across Canada but worldwide.

America's sudden change in car - buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel efficiency standards.

While the present policy debate on climate change focuses on 2020, 2050 and 2100 targets, our present use of fossil fuels will continue to affect the atmosphere and the oceans for many, many thousands of years.

This lapse of temperature data of the ocean's interior led to the scientific question over whether the world hit a «global warming pause» in the early 2000s, which fueled debates in congress over whether climate change is real.

While this study does address several socio - economic factors related to climate change, it will naturally lead to more questions, and to more research, both of which fuel a healthy debate.

Ebell spoke in a panel presentation titled «Climate Change Debate: How Speech is Being Stifled» alongside Attorneys General Luther Strange and Scott Pruitt, as well as Chet Thompson, President of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.

While apparently not wanting to «get into the science debate,» Climate Litigation Watch says the science linking fossil fuel producers to climate change is «dubious» — a position at odds with every major scientific academy on the planet.

The Heartland Institute has a long history of climate change denial and support for the fossil fuel industry and is known for its regular International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) where prominent climate change deniers gather to promote the idea that a debate still exists on the science behind man - made climate cchange denial and support for the fossil fuel industry and is known for its regular International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) where prominent climate change deniers gather to promote the idea that a debate still exists on the science behind man - made climate cChange (ICCC) where prominent climate change deniers gather to promote the idea that a debate still exists on the science behind man - made climate cchange deniers gather to promote the idea that a debate still exists on the science behind man - made climate changechange.

Needless to say this has been deeply disturbing to an «ordinary Joe» (with 5 grandchildren) who has made an effort to understand the science and the politics that underlie the climate change «debate», especially since my country has become such an important player in the fossil fuel business with its tarsands and pipeline industries that affect us all, so I've tried to find out more about Judith Curry's recent contributions to the debate, not so much the hair - splitting, angels on the head of a pin, esoteric dissections of graphs and stats that I see here on your website but the ethical stance that you take on the larger issue of «killing» the IPCC and all it represents.

On climate change as a security threat: In an October debate, Sanders said climate change was the greatest threat to U.S. national security: «The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we're going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable.

If the company will still downplay the effects of climate change through this new job hiring, it might fuel more debates and pressure from the U.S. government.

Debate surrounds the extent to which the Climate Change Act has driven the rise in cost of fuel bills, and is thus responsible for the rise in fuel poverty.

At the heart of philosophical debate of how we can best mobilize industry to deal with climate change lies one single dirty fuel source: coal.

It is true that fossil fuel interests have had a generally toxic effect on the debate over climate change in the US, corrupting the Republican party in particular into a reckless refusal to acknowledge climate science and its implications.

Very few politicians supporting any meaningful legislation on climate change, limited discussion in the Press and political debates, projections for increasing fossil fuel use as far out as the eye can see, etc..»

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

«This doesn't work for something like Segregated Witness (SegWit) of course,» he said, referring to a bitcoin code change that fueled a two - year debate in the community over the technical direction of the protocol.