Sentences with phrase «climate policy reasons»

Like all the IPCC scenarios, B1 does not assume that any measures are taken for climate policy reasons (e.g., Kyoto, or carbon sequestration).

Not exact matches

But the current economic climate is challenging for several reasons, including the mop - up project in the wake of the extraordinary policy decisions over the last decade.

In BCBC's critique of our latest report, A Clean Economy and Jobs Plan for British Columbia, BCBC argues there are three main reasons the province should not adopt new climate policy:

@why change in government is not the point, change in political climate and the regime policies is the reason.

Trevor Tompson, director of the AP - NORC Center, said the bipartisan agreement on climate change's existence could be reason to hope for policy action: «Public opinion around many energy issues tends to be fluid, with people often defaulting to partisan starting points.

African policy makers do care about the region's rapid rate of population growth — but climate change is by no means the top reason why.

This report and accompanying policy brief show that there is good reason to pursue the measurement of social - emotional learning (SEL) and school culture / climate (CC) as a way to better understand student and school performance.

That's one of the many reasons why international climate policy is so complex and why real world goal setting doesn't start with single numbers and work backwards.

The failure to do that effectively is one of the reasons why climate science hasn't been more directly linked to policy.

There's a third reason: They have long understood Climate Change as the threat it is and have had national policies in place for years.

Part of the reason that elements of the climate change debate take on religious proportions — by the activists for and against policy — is that folks have so dug in around almost every aspect of the debate that it is hard to raise a question about some uncritically accepted element of the religious canon without folks first attacking you as an untrained heathen.

Instead, you'll see something in between the world sought by «climate hawks,» the term proposed by David Roberts of Grist as the label for aggressive campaigners pursuing policies that live up to the picture delineated by science, and the contrasting world of free marketeers and industrialists who speak breezily of climate uncertainty as a reason to relax and let spreading wealth give people the leisure to start to care for the environment and the money and technology to do something to clean it up.

That means it will serve any faction in the climate policy fight — providing uncertainty to be sprinkled by those seeking energy stasis and reasons for concern for those pushing for action.

The only plausible approach is a stepwise policy, building from smart near - term steps that can be sold to many constituencies for many reasons (energy efficiency, boosting resilience to climate hazards in vulnerable places) toward the tougher ones.

Climate, Energy and the Mind First, anyone pointing to the lack of media coverage of global warming, or the lack of chills and thrills, as the reason for a lack of climate - friendly energy policies and actions hasn't fully explored the findings of Kahan and LeiseClimate, Energy and the Mind First, anyone pointing to the lack of media coverage of global warming, or the lack of chills and thrills, as the reason for a lack of climate - friendly energy policies and actions hasn't fully explored the findings of Kahan and Leiseclimate - friendly energy policies and actions hasn't fully explored the findings of Kahan and Leiserowitz.

Climate change is mentioned as one of the many reasons for a concerted and intensified push on energy policies that work for the long haul.

Given the last 30 years there is no reason to believe, from a policy perspective, that spending more money on climate change will lead to any more certainty about climate sensitivity.

But while science advances through that process of argument, public attitudes on climate change have largely been dulled by the debate, particularly after more than a decade of industry - backed efforts to point to the implicit complexity in the science as a reason for inaction on related energy and climate policies.

And therein lies just one of the reasons climate policy is «beyond super wicked,» as I've said before.

This is one reason the policy debate, essentially over how much to invest in a climate insurance policy, remains turbulent.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a way, and a reason, to explore the realities of climate hazards, human - driven climate change and related personal and policy choices.

Gary Yohe, an environmental economist at Wesleyan University, is one of a large group of veteran students of the climate - energy challenge who say the persistent uncertainties surrounding human - driven warming are the reason to act, to act promptly, and to include a rising price on emissions of greenhouse gases in any policy mix.

This is often the underlying reason behind disagreements over EU climate and energy policy, such as those around the EU 2030 targets agreed last October.

Point is once the policy action is taken, like most policy actions it's difficult to turn back And even if temperature stopped increasing but for reasons other than AGHGs, the climate advocacy will cry «aha, we were right, I told you so.»

It is now up to the GWPF to re-state their position with regard to climate policies: is there reason to act or to bury the head in the sand?

Policy implications are not limited by the uncertainties of climate science itself, they are more limited for other reasons: uncertainties in actual impacts and most importantly uncertainties in the actual outcomes of any specific policy decPolicy implications are not limited by the uncertainties of climate science itself, they are more limited for other reasons: uncertainties in actual impacts and most importantly uncertainties in the actual outcomes of any specific policy decpolicy decision.

A broad array of leading climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate change issues.

Lindzen writes this after Democratic lawmakers launched an investigation into energy industry funding of climate science, looking to discredit scientists whose research challenges the underlying reasons for C02 - reducing policies championed by the Obama administration.

In fact we are not spending billions of dollars a year on climate research for scientific reasons, but rather for policy reasons.

At the same time, focusing on the multiple compelling reasons for improving nitrogen and phosphorus management may represent an opportunity to make progress on climate policy in ways that are less politically divisive.

One of the reasons Bangladesh is suffering is because money that could be going to solve their real problems is being diverted to «global warming / climate change / climate disruption» research and policies.

One reason for the low carbon price in the EU ETS is that many European countries have other climate policies (carbon floor prices, feed - in tariffs to support renewables, energy efficiency policies, transport policies, etc) which are taking the load off the ETS.

If the Inquiry were to report by May, when we are likely to have a General Election it could give the incoming government a solid reason to review their climate change policy.

The reasons include a lack of relevant city policies and action plans; existence of regulations on urban planning and environment which have not been adjusted to manage climate change; slow response to climate disasters due to lack of capacity and resources; and lack of public awareness on climate variability and climate change - induced hazard mitigation.

One technic we use in security / public / tax policy to check their robustness is the folowing: «imagine that someone just want to break what you plan»... no reason, no interest... just silly evilness... how will he do... and start an ocean 11 plot... when the plot is set, just check if it is possible... in the case of climate, or fukushima like scenario it would be an evil divinity, a crasy group...

In turn, far from being out of bounds, the unresolved question of climate change's economic and social effects should be central to a reasoned policy debate.

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost - effective in order to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.

It is for this reason that the scenario framework distinguishes between «pathways,» which describe one component (such as RCPs or SSPs) of integrated scenarios, and «scenarios» themselves, which combine pathways with other information such as emissions, climate projections and policy assumptions to produce integrated descriptions of future climate and human system development.

I believe the kinds of accusations you (and most climate change advocates make) make about people who disagree with your judgment and priorities ensure that reasoned public policy on long term energy supply will not happen any time soon....

We would like now to explain in greater detail why taking the ethical reasons for support of climate change policies off the table in the debate about climate change is tantamount to a soccer team unilaterally taking the goalie out of the net.

In a climate case, more so than any other policy - related case, courts need to inform themselves of the range of scientific opinions, the specific points of agreement and disagreements, the assumptions made by scientists, their theories and reasoning, the validity and accuracy of the models used, the unknowns, uncertainties, and gradations, etc..

«What the current publication process has evolved into, at the detriment of proper scientific investigation, is the publication of untested (and often untestable) hypotheses... This is the main reason that the policy community is being significantly misinformed about the actual status of our understanding of the climate system and the role of humans within it.»

Sen. Boxer — Time TBD — Hoover Institution, Reason Foundation, Pacific Research Institute Sen. Coons — Time TBD (or Monday)-- Group TBD Sen. Schatz — 5 pm — Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Heartland Institute Sen. Franken — 5:15 pm — Heritage Foundation Sen. Warren — 5:30 pm — Science and Public Policy Institute Sen. Heinrich — 5:45 pm — American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Shaheen — 6 pm — Competitive Enterprise Institute, Energy and Environmental Legal Institute Sen. Reed — around 6 pm — SEC climate change disclosures and the dangers of climate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Inclimate change disclosures and the dangers of climate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Inclimate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke InClimate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Institute

It would be interesting if he elaborated on all the reasons why the prescriptive liberal policies have no chance of solving the global climate problem.

For this reason, AR5 serves as the basis to inform domestic and international climate policies.

China's «climate policy» is nothing more than their purely domestic energy policy, repackaged for diplomatic reasons.

One is that it is crucial for the builder of any climate models that is slated for use in policy making to be built under the principles of reasoning.

Other compelling reasons to begin taking action include the potential for catastrophes that defy the assumption that climate change damages will be incremental and linear; the risk of irreversible environmental impacts; the need to learn about the pace at which society can begin a transition to a climate - stable economy; the likelihood of imposing unconscionable burdens and impossible tasks on future generations; the need to create incentives to accelerate technological development the address climate change; and the ready availability of «no regrets» policies that have very low or even no costs to the economy.

Peter Howard, a Climate economist and economics director at New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity said that the assessment paper gave «insufficient reasons for abandoning a 2 °C limit.»

The last sentence of my previous comment should read: «One is that it is crucial for any climate models that is slated for use in policy making to be built under the principles of reasoning.»