Not exact matches
I sent a host of
climate and energy specialists my post on the «America's Climate Choices» reports from the National Academies and the first response comes from Mike Hulme, a professor of climate studies at the University of East Anglia and author of «Why We Disagree About Climate Change» and the recent «Hartwell Paper» on climate
climate and energy specialists my post on the «America's
Climate Choices» reports from the National Academies and the first response comes from Mike Hulme, a professor of climate studies at the University of East Anglia and author of «Why We Disagree About Climate Change» and the recent «Hartwell Paper» on climate
Climate Choices» reports from the National Academies and the first response comes from Mike Hulme, a professor of
climate studies at the University of East Anglia and author of «Why We Disagree About Climate Change» and the recent «Hartwell Paper» on climate
climate studies at the University of East Anglia and author of «Why We Disagree
About Climate Change» and the recent «Hartwell Paper» on climate
Climate Change» and the recent «Hartwell Paper» on
climate climate policy.
Among those who care
about cutting the chances that humans will propel sustained and disruptive changes in the
climate and oceans, this reality still tends to result in two mindsets: Raise public will to accelerate deployment of today's relatively costly non-polluting energy
choices (both renewable and nuclear) or press for intensified and sustained investments and
policies that can spur energy innovation.
The proposition that «science» somehow dictated particular
policy responses, encouraged — indeed instructed — those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue
about the science.36 So, a distinctive characteristic of the
climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular
policies; of
policy makers claiming that their preferred
choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «
policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.
«We're more explicit this time around
about the intersection between our energy
choices and our
climate challenges and the fact that we have such ambitious
climate goals that are really driving a lot of our energy
policy,» Klee said.
The core of the issue that I worry most
about, as do others, is that arguments for action on
climate change that evoke only one particular vision of the future will reflect only the priorities and values of certain parties, rather than a broad, pragmatic set of
choices designed to both effectively manage the problem of
climate change and align a diversity of political interests in support of
policy action.