Not exact matches
Climate contrarians
seem to have scored no points with the panel, leaving climate science still squarely behind
curbing greenhouse gas
emissions if the most serious consequences of global warming are to be avoided.
Your comment reminds me that our authorities in New Zealand do
seem to be paying attention to the effects of climate change, even if they're not doing much to
curb our
emissions.
Further, the two examples required no personal sacrifice or change of lifestyle on the part of the general population (concerned or otherwise), which
seems to be unavoidable to
curb emissions of GHG's.
By contrast, RCP 8.5
seems fairly close to what we are doing now — though with the agreement of the US and China, the world's largest emitters, to
curb emissions, and with optimism in the air for international agreement in Paris at the end of 2015, there is some room at present to hope that we may, over the next few years, begin to bend the Keeling curve downward a bit.
It would
seem that a large swathe of the economy is firmly behind concerted, predictable and sustained efforts to
curb emissions and move our economy into the 21st Century.
In fact, it
seems like she either doesn't understand the primary purpose of the bill — which is of course to begin
curbing carbon
emissions to fight climate change — or she just wanted an excuse to talk up her natural gas pipeline.