Sentences with phrase «go about its climate policy»

Michael Levi, author of a Council on Foreign Relations study of the Canadian oil sands, told the Washington Post that, with the decision, «the Obama administration made clear that it's not going to go about its climate policy in a crude, blunt way».

Not exact matches

As someone working somewhere in the midst of that nexus of «science, values, ethics and politics» you describe (economics, international relations, technology... the climate policy list goes on), I do recognise what you're talking about, but I really don't see that we should very much care.

He comes to the table with strong feelings about keeping federal lands in the hands of the government, a belief that «something is going on» with the climate and an embrace of an «all of the above» energy policy.

The main goal of EU's climate policy, they claim, is to create a market for the Danish and German renewable technologies and Poland is the only one bravely going against EU's madness about reducing emissions.

ATTP, I think don't you understand that your kind of talk is similar in style to the hard core climate activists that go after the throats of anyone asking any questions about the science in order to drive policy (or is policy driving the science).

Climate is about more than energy policy and can not legitimately be folded into it, despite the messaging strategy that many in the environmental and sustainable energy communities have been going along with.

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?

Deliberately reflecting a broad range of views about the climate change challenge and where to go from here, the report does not make any specific recommendation or endorsement as to policy direction or policy strategy.

We have a public meeting tomorrow night in our local market town where Tim Yeo — my MP — who is Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee responsible for climate and energy matters, is going to speak about the necessity to continue with aggressive pursuit of green policies.

«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.

Although ordinary individuals may have no duty to go beyond their own personal opinion about the science of climate change, government officials who have the power to enact policies that could present catastrophic harm to millions of people around the world may not as a matter of ethics justify their refusal to support policies to reduce the threat of climate change on the basis of their uninformed opinions on climate science.

Indeed we're more likely to establish good quality data if people accept it's actually going to be used for something, as opposed to just scoring points in a political shouting match which is more about justifying climate alarm than it is about informing policy.

Kevin Rudd had two distinctive policies going into the November 2007 election — the decision to get serious about climate change and the decision to create unemployment by restricting worker abilities to contract in labour markets.

«It's not going to happen if we boast about how we're going to scrap international treaties, or have elected officials who are alone in the world in denying climate change, or put our energy and environmental policies in the hands of big polluters,» Mr. Obama said.»

There is still plenty to argue about, as this comment list demonstrates, but as far as policy goes, someone should tell the policy makers the good news that the reasonable climate skeptics are now on side.

There is good but nascent research going on about policy decisions around climate.

Yet what Koch - affiliated groups like ALEC and the American Energy Alliance manage to do is take policies that save jobs and strengthen (clean) energy security and make them all about President Obama's agenda: any show of support for clean energy, goes their pro-fossil fuel line of reasoning, is a direct endorsement of climate action / the existence of climate change, and thus can not be tolerated.

«Our ignorance is simply enormous when it comes to the climate system, and our understanding is certainly not strong and solid enough to make policy about climate because we don't even know what it's going to do, so how can we make a policy that says «I want to make the climate do something» when we don't know what makes the climate do what it does?»

Prime Minister Abbott's speech «Daring to Doubt» described climate science with a skeptical viewpoint then went on to talk about climate policy with an emphasis on Australia.

if you went to a cardiologist and there were no engineers, the cardiologist would tell you of an irregular heartbeat and say sorry there is nothing we can do.really an absurd arguement... keep talking about the money and remember: «The US Government has spent more than $ 79 billion of taxpayers» money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, blah blah blah and you know where this came from so i leave out the note peace, rich