Sentences with phrase «environmental arguments as»

There are more fundamental political and environmental arguments as well.

Not exact matches

A federal appeals court signed off on the U.S. Interior Department's decision to take land into trust for a proposed Native American casino, rejecting arguments that the tribe's promises to mitigate environmental effects are «illusory» because as a sovereign Native American nation, it can not be sued to enforce them.

Bilbro also makes a compelling argument that the presumed pioneers of environmental thought were not as revolutionary as their modern irreligious readers might assume.

It is still not quite acceptable to say so, but the accusation that transcendental and conversionary theism generally and Christianity particularly are the primary source of our environmental ills (as well as of colonialism, imperialism, militarism, poverty, and the oppression of minorities and women), as many are saying today, is an argument of escalating rhetorical influence, but of declining credibility.

Social and environmental factors include experiences such as bullying, illness, problems at school, arguments with friends and major changes in the family such as moving house or the divorce of parents.

Moyo was thus uncriticically regurgitating the old Malthusian argument about «tragedies of the commons» occurring, mostly in developing countries, with population growth and environmental factors as the cause of growing poverty and civil strife.

One big challenge to U.S. efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions comes this week, as a federal circuit court hears arguments over a challenge to the White House's major climate change initiative, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulations targeting emissions from power plants.

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is busy girding itself for a fight over new greenhouse gas emissions rules, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case on whether lawsuits over climate ought to be permitted.

Students analyze persuasive arguments on subjects ranging from environmental conservation to legal decisions involving the First Amendment as they learn to identify elements of argument and to use rhetorical devices.

As various arguments for action on global warming have failed to blunt growth in emissions in recent years, environmental groups and international agencies have sometimes tried to turn the focus to diseases that could pose a growing threat in a warming world — with malaria being a frequent talking point.

In other words, the kinds of arguments environmentalists deployed, the nature of environmental conflict, shifted and became more ecology - focused in part because as a quantifiable science ecological arguments were more persuasive in court.

You say that this uncertainty is used «to argue that environmental policies based on concerns over global warming are not even worthy of support», but it seems to us that it is less the case that your objection is based on an argument made as much as the fact that they outlined a difference of opinion.

The only argument that might actually discover a receptive audience in the new Washington is one that says, «We need a rapid build - out of solar and wind power, as much for economic as environmental reasons.»

The Kichwa cosmovison contributes to indigenous support for efforts to combat climate change, acting as a compliment to Western scientific arguments, we found in our second analysis, in Global Environmental Politics.

On the contrary, our argument is that the environmental movement has totally failed to resonate with the public, as with the political establishment generally.

In 1981, my Harvard colleague, political scientist Steven Kelman surveyed Congressional staff members, and found that support and opposition to market - based environmental policy instruments was based largely on ideological grounds: Republicans, who supported the concept of economic - incentive approaches, offered as a reason the assertion that «the free market works,» or «less government intervention» is desirable, without any real awareness or understanding of the economic arguments for market - based programs.

(Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

As a neighbor Oregonian, I'm all for more trees but it would seem contrary to the arguments other environmental websites speak about lowering albedo and that water vapor is, in itself, a greenhouse gas.

The journal also welcomes analyses of practical applications of environmental, energy technology, regional, and urban policies, as well as theoretically robust discussions of common arguments that appear throughout debates on environment and energy policy, either in the scholarly literature or in the broader civic sphere.

He can only hear an argument in defence of abundance as an argument for environmental destruction and death based on some mathematically impossible concept of «infinite growth», no matter that the claim he makes finds little substance in reality.

As a chemist and an EU - certified environmental technologist I could enter the matter of CO2 chemistry, but i find it useless once the argument is identified as pure fraud from the beginninAs a chemist and an EU - certified environmental technologist I could enter the matter of CO2 chemistry, but i find it useless once the argument is identified as pure fraud from the beginninas pure fraud from the beginning.

Epstein's writing received praise from Patrick Michaels and Matt Ridley on the book's publisher's page, which describes The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels as «the best popular - market book about climate, environmental policy, and energy,» as well as an «eloquent and powerful argument for using fossil fuels on moral grounds.»

In contrast, when the same magazine, in the same month, reported on Harvard scientist Willie Soon's paper in the journal Ecological Complexity, which challenged received wisdom that climate change is imperilling polar bears, the scientific argument was ignored in favour of speculation about Soon's alleged links to the oil industry, and that the research was part of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the environmental movement's use of the polar bear as an icon (New Scientist 1.7.2007).

But as Pielke's arguments suggest, environmental problems do not demand special politics, or even special policies to control the desire for better and more.

You mainly stick on criticizing other people's arguments for being «shrill» or «moralistic» without actually addressing there points, such as the one i put forth about The Environmental Agency acknowledging that a third runway at heathrow would bring increasing morbidity and mortality.

The strongest argument against decoupling as a pathway towards a sustainable human future isn't that it's impossible, as Hickel claims, but that it isn't occurring quickly enough to prevent unacceptable environmental impacts.

Even before Indiana's top enforcer of federal and state environmental regulations was advising coal companies on how to continuing polluting our air and water, it appears that denial of basic climate science is the state's official position on global warming — Indiana's 2011 «State of the Environment» report rehashes tired climate denier arguments such as global temperature records having «no appreciable change since about 1998.»

This blog has pointed out, however, that environmentalism is at least as much an attempt to circumnavigate problems of democratic legitimacy as it is a response to environmental problems — that it is easier to take moral authority from scientific experts than it is to elicit from the governed the consent to govern in lieu of a convincing argument.

When the same magazine, in the same month, reported on Harvard scientist Willie Soon's paper in the journal Ecological Complexity, which challenged received wisdom that climate change is imperilling polar bears, the scientific argument was ignored in favour of speculation about Soon's alleged links to the oil industry, and that the research was part of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the environmental movement's use of the polar bear as an icon.

Holdren, a Harvard environmental science and technology professor, said skeptics such as Michaels «have had attention all out of proportion to the merits of their arguments.»

As we mention above, the basis of the argument for not having the NEB be a responsible authority in environmental assessments is that environmental assessment is a planning tool, not a regulatory tool.

After a few minutes, it appeared to me that he opposed the very idea of Alberta on principle and wasn't at all interested in hearing my argument (based on Ezra Levant's book Ethical Oil) that I'd rather buy my oil from Alberta than from undemocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, or Nigeria; regimes that either brutalize women, exploit the local population, decapitate those convicted of «crimes,» stone adulterers, discriminate against minorities, have no environmental standards whatsoever, or try to govern their citizens as if it's the 8th century and not the 21st.

We believe that the economic argument for solar is just as compelling as the environmental one and that everyone can save money and the environment at the same time.

Early development consists of critical periods during which children are vulnerable to exposures.34 Delays in children's development occur cumulatively and start as early as conception, which supports arguments for early investments.35 The impact of different nutrients on children's development depends on timing, dose and duration of deficiencies.8, 36 Parenting practices and home environments also influence child development and may either accentuate or attenuate the effects of poverty, which directly affects child outcomes.37 Thus, potential intervention effects can vary according to timing, exposures and environmental conditions.38 For these reasons, it is important to consider trajectories of child development across a spectrum of ages, not just any one age.39