I'll be writing more on
the fight over climate policy this weekend, which devolves to a battle over costs and benefits using economic models and projections that make climate simulations look like they were high - resolution photographs.
Not exact matches
«Our party has always been a broad church, and despite my principled differences with Jeremy
over many issues of defence, foreign
policy and national security, I agreed to serve on his front bench because of the mandate he was given, his assurances that honesty and difference were welcomed, and due to the many areas we agreed wholeheartedly on such as
fighting the vicious Tory trade union bill - which I was proud to lead our work on - cuts to tax credits and tackling
climate change.
Whether or not the backers are directly linked to the oil industry, they reflect how the
fight over energy
policy remains highly polarized, well financed (on both sides), and — so far — has resulted in few
policies that oil markets or the
climate system are likely to notice any time soon.
The challenge here, of course, is that the
fight over climate science, to my mind, is a spillover from the more heated, and deeper, debate
over climate policy.
Such moments of consensus are rarely visible given how the heated
fight over climate and energy
policy is mainly shaped, particularly in Washington, as a political tug of war.
Often I've seen the
fight over issues like
climate policy revealed, beneath the surface, as the result of a stark divide
over values - laden concepts such as the precautionary principle.
Andy also says the
fight over Keystone XL is a «distraction from the core issues» of broader
climate policy.
Discussions of
climate science and
policy have seen endless
fights over the appropriate role of scientists.
It's important to note that there's also sometimes a kind of «false inequivalence» in the
fight over climate science and
policies — an implication that the lack of action on greenhouse gases is largely the result of the unfair advantage in money and influence held by industries dealing in, or dependent on, fossil fuels.
Here's an excerpt from one of my previous posts laying out how the
fight over climate - related energy
policy is incredibly lopsided regardless of who's spending more money:
They all are talking about an end to the rhetoric of catastrophe that permeates the
fight over energy and
climate policy.
The last few days have seen frenzied volleys in the
fight over climate science and
policy, beginning with a 16 - author op - ed article in The Wall Street Journal on Friday and, most recently, with a 39 - author rebuttal published today in the paper.
It seeks to tie
climate policy to decades - old legal
fights over the dangers of tobacco smoke and lead paint.
The
fight over clean energy and
climate policy in California is dripping with out - of - state oil money because the oil billionaires want to stamp out the progress that has been made to move toward clean energy and energy efficiency, and keep us addicted to their fossil fuels.
«Since I
fought fire in Alaska
over 30 years ago, the planet has rapidly warmed and wildfire conditions have noticeably deteriorated,» commented Nicky Sundt, a former U.S. Forest Service smokejumper who now works on
climate policy at the World Wildlife Fund, by email.
The above illustration depicts, in a very abbreviated and sketchy form, that as the scientific evidence of the threat from human - induced
climate change became stronger
over a 40 - year period and as the US political opposition to
climate change
policies successfully
fought to prevent the adoption of robust US
climate policies, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rose from below 320 ppm (parts per million) to current levels of
over 400 ppm.
'' [I] t is hard to deny that the fossil fuel industry has been fiercely
fighting effective
climate policies over the past couple of decades.
When you're
fighting to keep your house, grieving
over the loss of a loved one or putting your life on the line to protect others lives and property, people talking about
climate policy or how these kinds of events will become more common and more severe is very uncomfortable.