Sentences with phrase «harmed by climate change»

They claimed that a solution to global warming should not be cutting emissions, but rather «Work to facilitate movement of people from areas likely to be harmed by climate change» (PDF).

Those nations, sub-national governments, organizations, businesses, and individuals that are emitting greenhouse gases above their fair share of safe global emissions have obligations, duties, and responsibilities for the costs of adaptation or damages to those who are harmed or will be harmed by climate change.

The health of millions of people across the world is already being significantly harmed by climate change, a major new report finds.

Given that a case can be made that current levels atmospheric ghg concentrations are already harming or putting people and ecosystems at risk, it is difficult to make an ethically acceptable case that atmospheric ghg concentration targets higher than current levels are justified unless consent is given by those who are already being harmed by warming or full compensation is made to those who through no fault of their own are harmed by climate change.

Such a framing ignores that it is tens of millions of poor people around the world who will be most harmed by climate change if high - emitting nations fail to reduce their emissions to their fair share 0f safe global emissions.

Do you agree that those nations and people around the world who will most be harmed by climate change have a right to participate in a decision by a nation that chooses to not adopt climate change policies because costs to it are deemed unacceptable?

1.2 The health of Americans is already being harmed by climate change, and it's likely to get worse in the not too distant future.

But think of the good news about the (never) coming climate change catastrophe: No one has been, or will be, harmed by climate change, and since Earth's climate is always changing, there can be a permanent «war» on climate (to keep goobermint bureaucrats busy).

Another flashpoint is the developing countries» demand for a «loss and damage» mechanism to compensate poor countries irreparably harmed by climate change.

Not exact matches

Situated on the Blagdon Estate owned by Matt Ridley, a peer and Conservative politician who has said climate change has done more good than harm, Shotton has been mined by Banks since 2008.

And they will face unique harm if the complex supply chains they rely on are weakened by climate change.

«For the sake of future generations who could be harmed by irreversible climate change, I urge New Yorkers to reject this fear mongering and uphold science against ideology,» he said in a statement.

Climate change may be harming the future of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) by impacting the survival rates of pups, according to one of the first studies on how shifting temperatures are impacting tropical species.

«We could combat climate change, reduce harm to health and foster advances in automotive technology by offering a stimulus for auto makers to develop more economical and efficient cars fueled by ethanol.»

What is clear is that the BBC is harming the public interest by sacrificing accuracy for impartiality in its coverage of climate change.

According to a poll conducted by researchers at Yale University's Project on Climate Change Communication, four out of five Americans reported personally experiencing one or more types of extreme weather or a natural disaster in 2011, while more than a third were personally harmed either a great deal or a moderate amount by one or more of these events.

Gary Cohen, president and founder of the Massachusetts - based nonprofit Health Care Without Harm, said in a telephone interview that the risks of climate change to both the health of U.S. citizens and the U.S. health care delivery system is profound, particularly in urban areas, where warming average temperatures are exacerbated by the heat island effect and high concentrations of other air pollution like ozone and particulate matter.

By delaying our ability to respond in time to climate change, it's doing more harm than good,» he says.

In the book, Conway and science historian Naomi Oreskes contend that with climate change there was even a «Potemkin village» effect created by disbelievers who «replaced science with its opposite» because of their concerns that environmental regulations would harm the free market and damage important business interests.

Climate change is projected to harm human health by increasing ground - level ozone and / or particulate matter air pollution in some locations.

Via Twitter, I found and read a fascinating analysis by Stéphane Hallegatte, an economist and lead climate change specialist at the World Bank, pointing to the rational aspects of why we end up building in harm's way.

There is of course more, but I'm going to stop because I realize that while all this is good evidence for harms caused by anthropogenic climate change in general, to be really relevant to the topic at hand, we should be looking at the specific harms alleged by the plaintiffs in the suit over which judge Alsup is presiding.

And crucially, churches in the U.S. have just begun to take up this issue in big numbers, which they see as a moral issue of not just protecting God's Creation, but also not inflicting direct harm on helpless people around the world.A new coalition of environmentalists, aid groups, and churches have been pivotal in changing the momentum for the new «Climate Security Act» co-sponsored by Senator John Warner.

Rather than focussing on the important but inherently incremental developments in the science behind the issue, the media would do us all a favor by maintaining a consistent message regarding the underlying issue (i.e. human action is causing climate change, and climate change has the potential to do great harm to our way of life) and focus on how ordinary people can take steps in their own lives to help address the problem in ways that don't require inordinate sacrifice.

by Deborah McNamara on December 3, 2015 0 climate marches 2015 climate talks in Paris 2015 discussing global warming with family and friends historic climate mobilization more think global warming will harm them personally UN Climate talks Yale Project on Climate Change Communiclimate marches 2015 climate talks in Paris 2015 discussing global warming with family and friends historic climate mobilization more think global warming will harm them personally UN Climate talks Yale Project on Climate Change Communiclimate talks in Paris 2015 discussing global warming with family and friends historic climate mobilization more think global warming will harm them personally UN Climate talks Yale Project on Climate Change Communiclimate mobilization more think global warming will harm them personally UN Climate talks Yale Project on Climate Change CommuniClimate talks Yale Project on Climate Change CommuniClimate Change Communications

Its conclusions, as I wrote today, largely follow those of other United Nations assessments of the challenges posed by human - caused climate change — particularly the call for prompt, aggressive reductions in greenhouse gases by developed countries, along with a lot more aid for the poor countries most in harm's way.

The demonstrators were largely focused on economic injustice and inequity, with a central concern being climate change driven mainly by emissions from rich countries and mostly harming poor nations that have not had an industrial revolution.

[1] «Indirect land use change» (ILUC) means that many biofuels harm the climate even more than the fossil fuels they replace — due to land use changes caused by the expansion of agriculture to meet the additional demand for crop - based biofuels.

Shaye Wolf, climate science director for the Center for Biological Diversity, the conservation group that launched legal action to get Pacific walruses listed in 2008, told Earther that the agency's claim that walruses will adapt to climate change «is baseless, and simply doesn't match the science showing that walruses are being harmed by the devastating loss of their sea ice habitat.»

The Imperial College London researchers cautioned that even plants that can take advantage of higher CO2 levels could be harmed by other climate change impacts, such as increased temperature and ozone concentration.

The models, melding climate science, demographic change and economics, project harms by looking at possible shifts in human populations, technologies, economies and the climate in coming decades.

Climate change is projected to harm human health by increasing ground - level ozone and / or particulate matter air pollution in some locations.

The US obligation to reduce its emissions is terminated only when it is below levels required by fair global allocations that will prevent dangerous climate change although even in this case an argument can be made that any nation that could reduce emissions further should do so to avoid catastrophic harm to others.

A group of scientists, including myself, have consequently decided that we must speak out about the irreparable harm that would be done by a climate change - denying, anti-science-driven Trump presidency.

Time and time again we hear justifications by US politicians for their opposition to climate change policy on the basis that proposed legislation on climate change will harm the US economy or a US industry such as the coal industry.

More specifically, when opponents of climate change policies make self - interest based arguments against the adoption of policies such as cost to the United States, there are no follow - up questions asked by the press about whether those who argue against climate change policies on grounds of cost to the United States are denying that the United States has duties or responsibilities to those outside the United States to prevent harm to them.

But by the start of the 21st century, it was clear that climate change would bring serious harm to many regions — some more than others.

BP may shut down the oil gusher in the Gulf by the end of the summer, yet the harms from human - induced climate change will likely plague the world for centuries.

Finally, McKinley completely misrepresented the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), saying, «Most experts believe by 2083 — in 70 years — the benefits of climate change could outweigh will still outweigh the harm.Climate Change (IPCC), saying, «Most experts believe by 2083 — in 70 years — the benefits of climate change could outweigh will still outweigh the harm.&Change (IPCC), saying, «Most experts believe by 2083 — in 70 years — the benefits of climate change could outweigh will still outweigh the harm.climate change could outweigh will still outweigh the harm.&change could outweigh will still outweigh the harm.»

His end of the tutorial focused on the changes we can anticipate as average temperatures go up around the world, noting that models have become more robust and that scientists are zeroing in on the harms that will be caused by unmitigated changes to the global climate.

In October 1998, CEI staff figured prominently in a press advisory sent to reporters by the conservative Media Research Center, offering them as «credible sources» who can show that «many scientists are skeptical of climate change theories,» «a warmer earth may be a prosperous earth,» «global warming policies would harm the US economy,» and «the Kyoto protocol could undermine US national security.»

But combatting climate change produces real benefits — in the present — by reducing emissions from power plants that directly harm human health.

This question is designed to expose that those politicians who refuse to reduce their government's ghg on the basis that they are not scientists can not ethically justify non-action on climate change on this basis because once they are put on notice by respected scientific organizations that ghg from their government jurisdiction are harming others, they have a duty to prevent dangerous behavior or establish credible scientific evidence that the alleged dangerous behavior is safe.

In other words how have you considered the harms to others that will be caused by government inaction on climate change?

This question is designed to expose that refusals of nations to reduce their emissions to their fair share of safe global emissions is implicitly a position on acceptable levels of atmospheric ghg concentrations which is essentially a moral issue because a position on acceptable atmospheric ghg concentrations is a position on who shall be greatly harmed by human - induced climate change.

This is so because in addition to the theological reasons given by Pope Francis recently: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

This kind of argument has taken several different forms such as, climate policies simply cost too much, will destroy jobs, harm the economy, or are not justified by cost - benefit analyses just to name a few cost - based arguments made frequently in opposition to climate change policies..

Looking at the delay caused by the climate change policy opposition in the United States is illustrative of the harm caused by political opposition to climate change policies worldwide.

This is so because: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

These features include: (a) it is a problem caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of ghgs in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people and who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, and, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people, nations must act quickly to limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions.