When Mitt Romney unleashed a barrage of criticism against his party's front - runner, he began with
the economic argument against Donald Trump.
And so
the economic argument against it has been framed ever since.
What you said (and I was taking notes) was that it's locals and library workers» jobs to prevent the closre of local libraries, and the Shadow Chancellor's job to make
the economic arguments against the Coalition spending review.
Many of the current
economic arguments against seem to fall in the same vein.
We have examined ethical problems with
economic arguments against climate change in other ClimateEthics entries in considerable detail.
(See, for example, Ethical Issues Entailed By
Economic Arguments Against Climate Change Policies, The original organizations that sought to undermine public support on climate policies by exaggerating scientific uncertainty have expanded to include ideological think tanks, front groups, Astroturf groups (i.e., groups organized by industry that pretend to be a legitimate grassroots organization), and PR firm led campaigns.
With very few exceptions, the US press has utterly failed to cover climate change as an ethical and moral issue while focusing on the scientific and
economic arguments against taking action that have been made by opponents of US climate change policies for almost 30 years.
It is also practically important because the first four IPCC reports, although not completely ignoring all ethical and justice problems with economic arguments about climate change policies, failed to examine the vast majority of ethical problems with
economic arguments against climate change policies while making economic analyses of climate change policies the primary focus of Working Group III's work thereby leaving the strong impression that economic analyses, including but not limited to cost - benefit analyses, is the preferred way to evaluate the sufficiency of proposed climate change policies.
Again and again proponents of action on climate change have responded to
economic arguments against taking action to reduce the threat of climate change by making counter economic arguments such as climate change policies will produce new jobs or reduce adverse economic impacts that will follow from the failure to reduce the threat of climate change.
In the late 1960s he worked very closely with the Sierra Club to present
economic arguments against the construction of two proposed dams in the Grand Canyon of Arizona.
Not exact matches
This one will directly determine
economic policy so complex, one columnist quipped, the
arguments for and
against «make my eyes cross.»
The main
argument against taking action to reduce carbon emissions has always been
economic.
The latest
economic impacts of the pipeline constraints come amid an intensifying spat between Alberta and British Columbia over the construction of the Trans Mountain project, pitting
arguments of
economic impact
against the importance of protecting coastlines and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.
But we argue that the underlying social purpose of such Jubilees — to keep debt within the reasonable ability to be paid without social and
economic polarisation — could be recreated via alternative mechanisms, and we discuss the politico -
economic arguments for, and
against, doing so.
Economic study tells us for every dollar invested in a local community, it generates at least 5 dollars in spending — which is the biggest
argument against the way Tribal casinos are set up where the most money leaves the local community permanently.
The
argument against free trade above is made in the name of community
against undifferentiated consumption of goods and services as the sole end of
economic activity.
Apart from the
argument that we have a moral duty to help those who wish to come to this country (which you may or may not accept), there is an
economic case in favour of immigration in that the economy benefits from the availability of cheap labour, and there is a case
against in that growth in population especially in the crowded South - East creates a lot of pressure on infrastructure such as housing, transport, hospitals, and schools (and the growth in population is largely due to immigration).
Capitalism, from this first
argument against economic growth, is like a bicycle, the economy either grows (moves forward) or it falls over.
Interpretations of the National Interest have been at the forefront of the debate in an entirely new way for the British, pitching referendum
against parliamentary voting, domestic and
against foreign policy issues, numerical majorities
against political and
economic arguments, elites
against elites.
«We question the
argument the comptroller has given, the
economic argument, given the timing, the wave of anti-BDS legislation that is coming across the United States right now,» said Jas Chana, spokesman for the National Coalition
Against Censorship.
He admitted that a plebiscite could create
economic uncertainty, but said that the risks of losing the vote were not a good
argument against holding one.
As polls show their party poised to make big gains this fall, National Republicans believe that a new round of attack ads arguing that the $ 814 billion
economic stimulus created jobs in China will be a potent closing
argument against Democratic incumbents.
I am strictly
against reproductive cloning, at the same time arguing in favour of a certain research field with the primary
argument that it will improve the scientific and
economic infrastructure in Germany.
«This is too logical a transition for anyone to have an ideological
argument against clean energy, because it stands
against economic growth and good business sense,» says Daniel Kammen, professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, and science envoy for the U.S. State Department, who is attending the talks, «That's what people are saying here — they're incredulous that anyone would want to back off on this.»
We'll reduce it 40 percent by 2020, by 2020 everything we make we'll use 40 percent less energy per dollar or per yuan of value, okay; which is good, I mean, there's no
argument to be made
against them doing it, but their own
economic projections indicate that their economy is going to grow so quickly that they'll be producing more CO2 instead of less at the end of that period.
The 1998 reform: progressive
economic arguments for introducing tuition [10] It was
against this backdrop that the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education released the Dearing Report in 1997, which called for new tuition fees supported by an expanded and revised system of student loans.
But on the other hand, we here have to balance that fact
against a compelling development
argument: agriculture of high - margin organic produce is a potential
economic boon for many people in developing countries — which also can diversify their economies and to do so in a (locally) green way.
I think this emerging form of emissions accounting provides a valuable way to show how the growing coal (and natural gas) greenhouse - gas emissions commitment will play out, but — because of the competing social and
economic values embedded in that extracted energy, along with the equity
argument poor countries use
against established fossil - powered industrial giants — I'm not sure it leads to a more effective strategy for cutting those emissions.
It's instructive to see both legal and
economic arguments applied
against ideologically - driven regulation.
And so if climate change raises civilization challenging ethical questions which imply duties, responsibilities, and obligations what questions should the press ask opponents of climate change policies when they make
economic and scientific
arguments against climate change policies?
This topic is enormously practically important because nations and others who argue
against proposed climate change policies usually rely on various
economic arguments which often completely ignore the ethical and justice limitations of these
arguments (In the case of the United States, see Brown, 2012.)
What distinguishes ethical issues from
economic and scientific
arguments about climate change is that ethics is about duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others while
economic and scientific
arguments are usually understood to be about «value - neutral» «facts» which once established have usually been deployed in
arguments against action on climate change based upon self - interest.
The
arguments «
against» nuclear are not
economic, they are public perception, and the inevitable politics that goes with that.
«In the end, the
arguments for and
against bottled water are more than simply environmental or
economic.
The
economic equivalent is the Great Depression and the boom of post WWII; both were radical swings for and
against the larger trend of greater trade and prosperity for the USA from founding to today (And if one substitutes public debt to CO2 emissions and switches
arguments oddly similar debates arise with the same amount of acrimony on solutions).
Senator Alan Ferguson used a variant of this
argument when arguing in Parliament
against the adoption of the Rudd Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; he said that Australia is «responsible for less than 1 1/2 per cent of the world's emissions» and implied that since our contribution was so small there was no point in risking our
economic well - being by reducing our greenhouse gas production.
The
economic importance of the cases heard by the GC is also such that the cost of the CJ's proposal is not a significant
argument one may raise
against it.
Another
argument against the
economic harm exception is that it would damage the solicitor - client relationship.
It appears that there are three main
arguments supporting a position
against allowing an
economic harm exception: that it is not the lawyer's responsibility; that interference with solicitor - client privilege would irreparably harm solicitor - client relationships; and finally that
economic harm is «a risk you take» when investing.
While many legal and practical
arguments against separation have been effectively deployed, many incumbent operators have struggled to articulate their
economic rationale for vertical integration.
The personal injury bar's
argument against limiting noneconomic damages — that a jury's award of noneconomic damages should not be reduced to an amount determined by legislators because a jury can determine on a case - by - case basis to what extent to compensate a plaintiff for harm suffered — fails to address the difference between noneconomic damages and
economic damages, and fails to take into account the intangibility of noneconomic damages awards.