Sentences with phrase «debates about climate change policies»

This is a call for researchers in different nations to investigate how national debates about climate change policies have expressly considered or not ethics and justice issues in formulating climate policies.

Debate about climate change policy in the United States has almost always assumed that US policy - makers can look to US economic interests alone in establishing US climate change policies.

Because debates about climate change policy formation at the national level have often ignored questions of equity and fairness, there is a need to publicize how debates at the national level about proposed climate change policies acknowledge or ignore questions of equity, ethics, and distributive justice.

To not respond to a request for that information would seem to be hiding behind the letter of FOIA rules (we shall see what the IC says), rather than responding in its spirit; if the information exists at all, it is surely in the public interest for it to be made public, to improve the quality of the debate about climate change policy.

I can speak personally for the lively debate about climate change policy.

Not exact matches

Obama offered no indication of whether he'll eventually issue a permit for the pipeline, whose construction has become a flashpoint in the U.S. debate about environmental policy and climate change.

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

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.

The letter, which included a statement on climate science by the leaders of 18 scientific societies, stated, «Although debate about policy options exists, climate change is not a scientifically - controversial topic.»

This two - valued approach would provide clarity to climate change policy analyses, which often result in misleading debates about policy trade - offs.

Galway and Roscommon, Ire About Blog I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.

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.

The op - ed favorably cited by Mike Mann says this explcitly, «That means we need to clearly say there is no scientific debate about climate change — and instead shift the conversation to next steps... Those of us who write opinion need to press for public - policy action, steps that move us as a planet forward.

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

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

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

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.

His view accords with that of a growing number of scientists concerned about the pursuit of «intensely political» areas of science, such as the debate over climate change, amid fears that views contrary to government policy were unwelcome.

The IMO has been talking about climate change for twenty years but the strategy agreed this week marks the beginning of a focused debate about the policies and measures that will help it to modernise and regain the status of a clean and efficient mode of transport.

Last Tuesday's debate featured extensive discussions about climate change policy, a first for a presidential candidate debate of any stripe.

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.

This is journalism for the public policy debate about climate change, not written by a subject matter expert.

Instead, we should have a legitimate policy debate between the center - right and the center - left on what to do about climate change.

Common to these arguments is that they have successfully framed the climate change debate so that opponents and proponents of climate policies debate facts about costs, scientific uncertainty, or economic harms to nations that act while other large emitters don't act rather the moral problems with these arguments.

Unless the skeptics form a theory, they'll remain minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the public policy debate about climate change (they're distinct, although often conflated).

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

«There is a «false sense somehow that there is a two - sided debate going on in the scientific community» about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.

The climate denial countermovement has also blocked critical reflection on and serious debate about climate change through other strategies which seek to promote the idea that civil society will be better off if climate change policies are not adopted.

In the meantime, during the debates about US domestic policy on climate change that have been taking place for almost thirty years, the US media has reported on climate issues almost exclusively by focusing on issues of scientific certainty about climate change impacts and economic cost to the US economy.

This phenomenon is partly attributable to the fact that economic interests opposed to US climate change policies have skillfully and successfully framed the US climate change debate as a matter about which there is insufficient scientific evidence or too much adverse impact on the US economy to warrant action.

It has always been defended on that tired old notion that the debate about climate policy divides on the fact of climate change, between scientists who claim «climate change is real» and deniers who claim the opposite.

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.

Note: you are discussing my beliefs about the climate change policy debate.

My objections to how the public policy debate about climate change concerns methodology, and are explained here: How we broke the climate change debates.

My posts refer to the «public policy debate about climate change».

Nevertheless, there are constraints on time and money, and there is a debate brewing about which part of the climate change problem that public funds, private investment, philanthropic grants, and public policy should be focusing on.

Houston, Texas (CCNF) July 11, 2015 — Already a trusted source for citizens and educators wanting to hear what real climate scientists have to say about climate change, CCNF has now opened up its online forum to an ongoing discussion on values and begun hosting a bipartisan debate on climate policy -LSB-...]

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change has been, ever since, cited in debates about climate policy, the world over, and Nick Stern has become the climate alarmist's chieClimate Change has been, ever since, cited in debates about climate policy, the world over, and Nick Stern has become the climate alarmist's chieclimate policy, the world over, and Nick Stern has become the climate alarmist's chieclimate alarmist's chief guru.

... [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.»

This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy (7, 9 — 14).

This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy (7, 9 - 14).

The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, offer this new publication as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate change science.

Bringing together some of the world's foremost economic experts to contribute to the global debate about climate change and economic policy, and to inform government, business and investment decisions.

Galway and Roscommon, Ire About Blog I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.

Galway and Roscommon, Ire About Blog I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.