Sentences with phrase «climate safe limits»

Redefine global climate leadership by setting a global precedent to manage the decline of existing production in line with climate safe limits while ensuring a just transition for affected workers and communities.

Set a global precedent by becoming the first producer to announce a managed decline of existing production in line with climate safe limits, with a just and equitable transition that protects workers, communities, and economies.

Not exact matches

Climate scientist Jon Foley of the University of Minnesota, who is part of a team of researchers that defined safe limits for 10 planetary systems, including climate, argues for erring on the side of cClimate scientist Jon Foley of the University of Minnesota, who is part of a team of researchers that defined safe limits for 10 planetary systems, including climate, argues for erring on the side of cclimate, argues for erring on the side of caution.

They think the 2 - degree C target is a «safe» limit for climate change.

Bradley says, «With the signing of the Paris Agreement to try and limit greenhouse gas emissions, many people have been lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that the 2 - degrees C target is somehow a «safe» limit for climate change.

It also breaches the United Nations» safe limit of 2C, beyond which the UN says dangerous climate change can be expected.

The EPA did take one tiny step — among the Bush administration's only ones to date — toward tackling global warming last week when it released regs governing how companies may pump and store carbon dioxide underground (to limit climate change) without violating the Safe Drinking Water Act.

His work has shown that limiting cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide may be a more robust approach to climate change mitigation policy than attempting to define a «safe» stabilization level for atmospheric greenhouse gases.

guidelines and programs for in - service education programs for all district staff members to ensure effective implementation of school policy on school conduct and discipline, including but not limited to, guidelines on promoting a safe and supportive school climate while discouraging, among other things, harassment, bullying and discrimination against students by students and / or school employees; and including safe and supportive school climate concepts in the curriculum and classroom management; and

Each such employee shall be required to complete at least one training course in school violence prevention and intervention, which shall consist of at least two clock hours of training that includes but is not limited to, study in the warning signs within a developmental and social context that relate to violence and other troubling behaviors in children; the statutes, regulations, and policies relating to a safe nonviolent school climate; effective classroom management techniques and other academic supports that promote a nonviolent school climate and enhance learning; the integration of social and problem solving skill development for students within the regular curriculum; intervention techniques designed to address a school violence situation; and how to participate in an effective school / community referral process for students exhibiting violent behavior.

Monitoring facets of school climate — like how safe, supported, and welcome students feel in their schools — has, until recently, been off limits to some districts that lack the resources or know - how to accurately measure those perceptions.

Active park assist with parktronic system, Attention assist, Bluetooth interface for hands free telephone, Chequered flag design instrument cluster, COMAND HDD Navigation with radio / CD / DVD / MP3; 7» screen; traffic updates; speed limit assist; linguatronic voice control; SD card slot + online, Direct steer system with speed dependent servo assistance, Dynamic drive mode selector, Outside temperature gauge, Service indicator (Active Service System), DAB Digital radio, 2 Electric windows, AMG body styling, Automatic dimming interior and driver's door mirror, Automatic headlights, Body colour bumpers, Body coloured front splitter, Electric folding door mirrors, Green tinted glass, Heated rear window with timer, Intelligent light system with LED headlights; active light function; cornering lights and adaptive high beam assist, LED daytime running lights, Magic vision control, Rain sensor windscreen wipers, 3 spoke multi-function sports steering wheel, AMG floor mats, Black roof lining, Gearshift paddles,Neck - pro front headrests, Thermotronic automatic climate control, Memory package - SL Class, Active pedestrian safety system, Adaptive brake system, Anti lock brake system with Brake Assist, Automatic roll over protection, Driver and passenger head and side airbags, Dual stage Driver / Passenger Airbags, Electronic parking brake, Electronic Stability Program with Anti Skid Control, Hill hold function, Passenger airbag deactivation system,Pre - Safe anticipatory safety system, Tyre pressure monitoring system, Warning triangle and first aid kit, Alarm system / interior protection / immobiliser, Remote central locking, Adaptive damping system, Tyre sealant kit

Active park assist with parktronic system, AMG instrument cluster, AMG speed sensitive sports steering, Attention assist, Bluetooth interface for hands free telephone, Closing aid for boot / doors, COMAND online with Media interface, Crosswind Assist, Doorhold system,Mercedes - Benz emergency call, Outside temperature gauge, Power door closure, Remote boot release, Service indicator (Active Service System), Speed limit assist, Surround camera system, Touch pad controller for COMAND online, Trip computer, DAB Digital radio, Active light system, Adaptive brake lights, Adaptive high beam assist, AMG body styling, Auto dimming driver's door mirror, Automatic dimming rear view mirror, Automatic headlights, Body coloured bumpers, Electric adjustable / heated / folding door mirrors, Electric windows with one touch open, Front fog lights, Headlamp assist, Headlight wash system, Heated rear window with timer, Infrared protective + noise insulating glass, LED tail lights, Magic vision control, Rain sensor windscreen wipers, 2 rear head restraints, Ambient lighting, AMG brushed stainless steel sports pedals with rubber studs, AMG sports seats, Dual zone automatic climate control, Easy entry / electrically adjustable steering column, Electric front headrests with memory, Front folding armrests, Front / rear reading lights, Heated rear seats, Illuminated / air conditioned glove compartment, Isofix rear child seat preparation, Luggage nets in boot / front pass footwell, Multi function steering wheel, Rear centre console, Steering wheel gearshift paddles, Storage compartment in centre console, Sunglasses storage, Sunvisors with illuminated vanity mirrors, Twin front cupholders, Driving Assistance pack - S Class, Front seat comfort pack - S Class, Front seat memory pack - S Class, Keyless Go comfort pack - S Class, 2 rear seatbelts,Anti - lock brake system, Brake assist, Driver / Front Passenger airbags, Electronic parking brake, Electronic Stability Program with Acceleration skid control (ASR), Front + rear side airbags, Front passenger airbag deactivation, Hill hold function, Hill start assist,Pre - Safe anticipatory safety system, Tyre pressure monitoring system, Window airbags, Alarm system with interior protection, Chrome surround electric key, Immobiliser, Remote central locking, AMG sports suspension, Magic body control, Tyre sealant kit

But there's never been a greater chance, through collaboration and communication, to imbue our varied human journeys with a shared sense of priorities — including the importance of conserving Earth's biological bounty, spreading the gifts that come with access to information and safe sources of energy, and limiting the scope of human - driven climate change.

Chris Dudley (21, 40)-- Based on some limited knowledge about glaciers and ice sheets, I am of the fairly firm opinion that nothing above 300 ppm CO2e preserves a «safe» climate, in the long run.

Since the desires of the climate movement are to limit the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere in order to ensure a safe environment in which we can live long into the future, protest actions taken by the movement are not necessarily seen as moral objections to unjust laws in the same way sitting at a lunch counter or taking a seat at the front of a bus obviously are.

In light of the urgency of tackling climate change and nuclear power's essential role in limiting temperature rises, the four scientists will therefore challenge environmental leaders who still hold anti-nuclear positions to instead support development and deployment of safe and environmentally - friendly nuclear power.

In Oklahoma, for example, participation is voluntary, and the government limits its role to certifying the companies that verify emission reductions and nurturing agreement on how to measure the types of GHG reduction projects likely to be pursued in the state — such as grassland management and climate - safe farming.

This well - known target, which supposedly represents the «safe» limit of climate change, has always been a highly political choice that has more to do with minimizing economic disruption than with protecting the greatest number of people.

The threat posed by climate change to regional security «will limit access to food, safe water, power, sanitation, and health services and drive mass migration and competition for remaining resources.»

Warming over 2 degrees celsius would have dramatic consequences: the planet's ice sheets would be far more likely to melt, triggering more sea level rise, than at 1.5 degrees, which is considered the safer limit, according to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a physicist who heads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

I can see your logic to some extent but perhaps a difference my be that the unproven theory here, in other words the experiment, isn't whether CO2 is safe or not -LRB-... because it is safe, its been in our atmosphere for ever and is a key component in life... so that doesn't need to be proved), but perhaps at the outer limits is human induced CO2 driving climate change beyond the normal boundaries?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Bank, the International Energy Agency and other major institutions agree that most of the world's available fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground in order to limit global warming to safe levels (well below 2 degrees Celsius, and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees).

This is so because in addition to the theological reasons given by Pope Francis recently: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

This is so because: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

Should a developed nation such as the United States which has much higher historical and per capita emissions than other nations be able to justify its refusal to reduce its ghg emissions to its fair share of safe global emissions on the basis of scientific uncertainty, given that if the mainstream science is correct, the world is rapidly running out of time to prevent warming above 2 degrees C, a temperature limit which if exceeded may cause rapid, non-linear climate change.

These features include: (a) it is a problem caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of ghgs in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people and who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, and, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people, nations must act quickly to limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions.

In arguing that the United States or other high - emitting nations need not reduce their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions based on cost, how have you considered, if at all, that all nations have agreed in international climate negotiations to take steps to limit warming to 2 degree C because warming greater than this amount will not only create harsh impacts for tens of millions of people but runs the risk of creating rapid non-linear warming that will outstrip the ability of people and nations to adapt?

Tyndall, the UK's leading independent climate change research body, concludes that if aviation growth continues, it could take up the entire emissions budget for all sectors of the EU economy by 2040 and all sectors of the UK economy by 2037, if we are to keep within safe limits [2].

A hellish vision of a world warmed by 4C within a lifetime has been set out by an international team of scientists, who say the agonisingly slow progress of the global climate change talks that restart in Mexico today makes the so - called safe limit of 2C impossible to keep.

The report found this to be a safer target that would be compatible with the 1996 European Council target to limit temperature rise from climate change to 20 C.

It calls for «immediate and ambitious action to stop exploration and expansion of fossil fuel projects and manage the decline of existing production» and notes that «the carbon embedded in existing fossil fuel production will take us far beyond safe climate limits» and «many existing projects will need to be phased - out faster than their natural decline.»

«This model Act provides the Australian Government with the legal powers and planning machinery needed to restructure the economy and mobilise resources in order to prevent or limit a general climate and ocean acidification crisis and to urgently restore a safe climate and safe ocean pH,» writes Philip Sutton in the introduction to the model Act.

Research shows that the carbon embedded in existing fossil fuel production will take us far beyond safe climate limits.

If politicians at the UN climate change talks in December agree to cut emissions by 3 per cent every year, the world can limit temperature rise to a «safe» 2 °C, the Met Office says.

Yet many nations have caused, and continue to cause climate change damages while they have refused to limit their emissions to their fair share of safe global ghg emissions, compensate those who have been harmed, or provide adequate, predictable funding for adaptation.

These issues include: (a) the need to determine when the obligation of any nation is triggered, (b) difficulties in determining which adaptation and compensation needs are attributable to human - induced warming versus natural variability, (c) challenges in allocating responsibilities among all nations that have emitted ghg above their fair share of safe global emissions, (e) challenges in prioritizing limited funds among all adaptation and compensation needs, (f) needs to set funding priorities in consultation with those who are vulnerable to climate change impacts as a matter of procedural justice, and (e) the need to consider the capacity of some nations to fund adaptation and compensation needs.

Because nations have failed to make commitments to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to levels that will limit future warming do 2 °C, there is an increasing sense of urgency among climate scientists around the world on the need for all nations to significantly increase their greenhouse gas emissions reductions commitments to their fair share of safe global emissions.

As we shall see, these countries, among others, have continued to negotiate as if: (a) they only need to commit to reduce their greenhouse gas emission if other nations commit to do so, in other words that their national interests limit their international obligations, (b) any emissions reductions commitments can be determined and calculated without regard to what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, (c) large emitting nations have no duty to compensate people or nations that are vulnerable to climate change for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate climate change for climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate climate change damages or reasonable adaptation responses, and (d) they often justify their own failure to actually reduce emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions on the inability to of the international community to reach an adequate solution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Climate Change.

This is also clear in Figure 2 below (from The Sky's Limit), which shows a good deal of carbon in already - producing reserves that we can't afford to extract and burn in safer climate scenarios.

A strong ethical case can be made that if nations have duties to limit their ghg emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions, a conclusion that follows both as a matter of ethics and justice and several international legal principles including, among others, the «no harm principle,» and promises nations made in the 1992 UNFCCC to adopt policies and measures required to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference with the climate system in accordance with equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, nations have a duty to clearly explain how their national ghg emissions reductions commitments arguably satisfy their ethical obligations to limit their ghg emissions to the nation's fair share of safe global emissions.

350.org chose its name based on scientist James Hansens's research, which stated that 350 parts - per - million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere is the safe upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point.

Some scientists, and many of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, argue that the safe upper limit is 350ppm.

An imbalance that allows many fossil fuel producing countries (think Norway, Canada, the U.K etc.), to insist they are showing climate leadership all the while they are continuing to explore, expand, and exploit massive fossil fuel reserves with no meaningful plan for how they are going to stop it in line with safe climate limits.