Sentences with phrase «government believes in climate change»

He says the government believes in climate change and the Direct Action plan will work.

Not exact matches

After years of inaction by the old Progressive Conservative government, it is refreshing to have a government that believes in climate change and has actually presented a policy to address it.

«On his watch we have an environment secretary who doesn't believe in climate change, our carbon emissions are rising rather than falling and the government has failed to set a target a clean up our power system by 2030.»

Senior government advisers in any position who do not believe in climate change should be removed from their posts, said the Green Party leader.

Senior government advisers in any position who do not believe in climate change should be removed from their posts, says the Green Party leader.

Seven in 10 Republicans and nearly all Democrats who believe climate change is happening think the government needs to take action.

In half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: «However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so - called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.&raquIn half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: «However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so - called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.&raquin part: «However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so - called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.»

* A study published in Nature Climate Change earlier this month suggests that if the UK increased farm yields in line with what experts believe is possible, and turned spared land into forest and wetland, the resulting carbon «sink» could balance out the nation's agricultural emissions by 2050 — in line with government targets.

But they believe that the UK «is bucking these positive trends» and they call on the government to phase out unabated use of coal by 2023 to «improve air quality, protect the health of our population, and reclaim the UK's leadership position in tackling climate change.»

a) they don't believe the premise of man - made climate change: they don't think scientific data collected to date is adequate to prove conclusively that any type of man - made event can result in either the recent fluxuations in climate or the anticipated kinds of drastic climate change, therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem b) they don't believe CO2 alone is responsible: they think other variables are as or more likely to be the catalysts or causes for the scientific data collected to date on climate change therefore CO2 control would be ineffective at solving the problem c) they believe government efforts to curb CO2 emissions will fail resulting in an unprecedented waste of money and worse economic conditions.

He said that the large majority of governments at the Second Meeting of the conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (held in Geneva in June 1996), «while recognizing uncertainties, believe that we know enough to take some actions now,» and that this position was supported by more than 2000 independent scientists in a letter to President Clinton several weeks ago.

Christian Aid believes Doha gives governments a vital opportunity to advance global cooperation in confronting the challenge of climate change.

Clive Hamilton, member of the Board of the Climate Change Authority of the Australian Government and author of «Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering,» (Yale University Press, 2013) believes «the genie is out of the bottle and is not going to be put back in.»

While world leaders meet in Paris to discuss reducing carbon emissions believed to contribute to climate change, the government of Gibraltar is putting its own renewable energy plan into action.

I would sooner believe people whose livelihood depends on climate and weather, as they live their work, day and night in the field, and notice subtle changes, not a scientist who depends on Government grants, and crunches numbers in a city or town lab.

Lewandowsky and Cook believe that it will make it easier because the more people who «believe in climate change», the more there is apparent pressure on government to act on it.

While publics in both rich and poor nations are generally supportive of their own governments taking action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, in principle many people believe that wealthy societies, not poor economies, should take on more of the responsibility for addressing climate change.

For example, understanding that global warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global warming alarmism — which is why we see goats like political charlatans like Al Gore showing debunked graphs like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the climate change we observed can be explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the issue of global warming... that and the fact that global warming alarmists do not believe in the scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.

It is apparently now «headline news» that the man who will be in charge of all of our public lands, which are being devastated by human - caused climate change — some of which was caused by fossil fuels extracted from those lands — doesn't believe there is a massive conspiracy carried out by the entire global scientific community and literally every single major government in the world, including our own, to fool the public and media.

In November 2016, the Pope called climate change skeptics to an «ecological conversion,» while denouncing what he believed to be a «weak reaction» from governments to the climate crisis.

If Obama takes the position that legislation can be negotiated without regard to whether its supporters believe in the scientific evidence or not, if he brings to the bully pulpit no serious vocabulary on climate change, no gravitas on climate science, then how likely is it that he will lead government and society to deal with the problem in a «comprehensive» way?

Dr Pachauri, who was returned to the post in 2008, was the favoured candidate of the US Bush administration which reportedly disliked Dr Watson's willingness to tell governments what he believed to be the unvarnished truth - that human activities were contributing dangerously to climate change.

This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government - sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. soClimate Change (IPCC), which is government - sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solChange (IPCC), which is government - sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. soclimate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solchange is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.

Today we have the Honorable Foua Toloa, head of Government of Tokelau in the Pacific, who believes the island's 1,400 inhabitants are at grave risk from climate change lack of money.

With great fanfare in Copenhagen, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley — the man who believes that action on climate change is a conspiracy to create a communist world government — announced this morning that he was joining the UK Independence Party.

And if you believe, as do many conservatives, that government intervention in markets and in social arrangements should be kept to a minimum, you can find factual support for your views in the long - term unpredictability of regional climate behavior, the significant economic and social costs associated with shifting to more expensive energy sources, and the historical failure of government efforts to steer large - scale social and economic change.

He added that the large majority of governments at the Ministerial segment of the Second Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (held in Geneva in June 1996), «while recognizing uncertainties, believe that we know enough to take some actions now,» and that this position was supported by 2000 independent scientists in a letter to President Clinton several weeks ago.

Twice as many people believe in the power of new technologies to solve climate change as believe business or regional government are leading the way.

Way, way back in the 2000s, when everyone believed in Hockey Sticks, the UK's Labour government commissioned somebody nobody had ever heard of to write a report on the economics of climate change, so that it could make an argument for domestic and international political action.

As I see it if anyone is actually crazy enough to actually believe that then a few «alarmist» headlines aren't to blame, nor would it make any difference if the media started reporting climate change in a more «moderate» way — this kind of attitude comes from a deep rooted idealogical opposition to government action and environmentalism.

While the idea is innovative in itself, and would make a clear statement about the UK Government's commitment to tackling climate change, many believe a 60 % reduction is not enough.

And they essentially translate into the following: Romney will do his best to remove restrictions on coal pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and does not believe the government has a role in addressing climate change.

Couple these statements with other ones made by Greenpeace regarding the state of the oceans and the United Nations trying to create a worldwide government through their Peacekeeping efforts in order to handle the unrest that climate change will supposedly bring about, and you get a fear - based society that will believe what they're told out of panic.