Sentences with phrase «debate about our energy policy»

Instead, Goldston is saying that we should recognize that debate about energy policy, climate change, etc. is inherently political.

What should have been a political debate about energy policy, environmental quality, and reducing vulnerability to weather and climate disasters, became a debate about the nuances of climate science, with climate scientists as the pawns and whipping boys.

Like many long time observers of the debate about energy policy, I had a vague grasp of the fact that renewables on any large scale disrupt the grid, but you have filled in a lot of the blanks in admirably clear and concise prose for a lay audience.

As the Guardian explains, the government of Uruguay was once gridlocked in a «seemingly endless and rancorous debate about energy policy.»

It would be much harder to say that about wind energy, if there had been a public, democratic, transparent debate about our energy policy, and the values which inform it.

Not exact matches

Ken Bone (C), a power plant employee from Belleville, Illinois, waits in the audience to ask a question about energy policy and jobs during the presidential debate between Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, October 9, 2016.

But it's also raising alarms from critics who worry that key decisions about state energy policy are being rushed without enough public debate.

Similar to the debate on fracking, public opposition to the gas port became part of a larger discussion about New York State's energy policy and how the state should respond to climate change.

And by all means let's ask Walmart to be a louder voice in public policy debates about energy and climate change.

But even as I push for an energy quest that limits climate risk, I'm not worried about the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and not worried about the system tipping into an irreversibly slushy state on time scales relevant to today's policy debates.

It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions and the environment, it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.»

At the second presidential candidate debate, one red - sweater - wearing American earned notoriety for his question about little - discussed energy policy.

While Washington debates about whether to get serious on our climate and energy policies, Beijing this week released China's five - year energy development plan, laying out an ambitious «all of the above» strategy that where lacking in specifics more than makes up for in vision (the plan, in Chinese; and Google translated).

The US President made a point about economic leadership in the second debate, one Mitt Romney did not oppose: America's environmental and energy policy is determined by the oil industry; it's future is in wind, solar and nuclear.

Wouldn't you rather see all the energy that has been and will be wasted counteracting and debating this video actually go in to constructive, practical thinking about all the many climate policies that we need to get passed soon?

But is it not also irresponsible to allow debate about what looks like a disastrous range of climate and energy policies — policies which have pushed up the price of energy, leaving people poorer, in colder homes, and causing other economic effects, none of which are good?

If a public debate about climate change and energy policies were permitted, and if the values that inform the interpretation of climate science were open to democratic contest, the climategate emails would be inconsequential.

We've listened to scientists who know their way around the debate within the atmospheric science and climatological communities and they're concerned that publicity about global warming is driving energy and environmental policy instead of good science.

Southern California Edison (SCE) Director of Energy Policy Gary Stern sees the coming debate about NEM as involving that question.

Now, if only we could have an honest debate about the science followed by action in Congress to create a real energy policy that is interest - group neutral.

... [O] ngoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change.»

But polluters, their lobbyists, and the politicians who work with them are holding the climate debate hostage and poisoning the debate about policies that would lower our greenhouse gas emissions and kickstart a clean energy revolution.