Sentences with phrase «if human pollution»

Not exact matches

If the world continues to accept disappearing tree - cover, land degradation, the expansion of deserts, the loss of plant and animal species, air and water pollution, and the changing chemistry of the atmosphere it will also have to accept economic decline and social disintegration... such disintegration would bring human suffering on a scale that has no precedent...» 7

And if there is one thing everyone agrees about in drug policy it is that the MDA (and similar legislation in other countries) was not intended to create a huge criminal market; undermine international development and security; increase health harms including HIV / AIDS; promote stigma and discrimination; lead to deforestation and pollution, and undermine human rights all over the globe (see countthecosts.org for details).

«The Lancet report underscores the terrible consequences for human health if we don't start reducing the dangerous carbon pollution fueling climate change — and dramatic benefits for people the world over from taking action now,» echoed Kim Knowlton, senior scientist and deputy director of the Science Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a release.

He says that if air pollution is adding harmful mutations to the human gene pool, «in the long run for society, the expenses are huge.»

After learning about the devastating effects of plastic pollution on the environment and human health, Oakland accountant Beth Terry began an experiment to see if she could live without buying any new plastic.

If human - induced global warming, among other factors such as human - driven pollution and human - forced overpopulation, serve decisively to precipitate the massive extinction of biodiversity, the irreversible degradation of Earth's environment and the reckless dissipation of its resources, so as to make our planetary home unfit for life as we know it, then is no one to bear responsibility for such a colossal wreckage as we could help to perpetrate in these early years of Century XXI?

As if more evidence was needed to combat air pollution caused from burning fossil fuels, two recently released reports articulate a human toll that may be higher than previously imagined.

If environmental groups and their backers want to see concrete progress on limiting the risk that humans will propel dangerous global warming, they may need more than just additional money and better organization, but also a hard look at core strategies and a philosophy that has long cast climate change as primarily a conventional pollution problem, not a technology problem.

[If not done conscientiously, then it could have the effect of producing lots of particulate pollution, which is not good for human health.

If the message was not unambiguous enough: Air pollution «threatens the continuing survival of human societies».

That lack of immediate concern may in part stem from a lack of understanding that today's pollution will heat the planet for centuries to come, as explained in this Denial101x lecture: So far humans have caused about 1 °C warming of global surface temperatures, but if we were to freeze the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at today's levels, the planet would continue warming.

«The Lancet report underscores the terrible consequences for human health if we don't start reducing the dangerous carbon pollution fueling climate change — and dramatic benefits for people the world over from taking action now.

«We have to control methane immediately, and natural gas is the largest methane pollution source in the United States,» says Cornell University marine biologist Robert Howarth, who claims that human - caused methane production, if not forcibly curtailed, will push Earth's temperature beyond the point of no return.

The best estimate from the best science is that people can limit warming from human - caused carbon pollution to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)-- if society acts now.

That means that if the pollution becomes too detrimental to human health and we stop that pollution, we will warm even faster.

Earth's systems simply can't support these numbers, even if we all did our best to live ethically and keep a small pollution footprint etc... we've been detached and removed from our food sources and the natural systems which used to sustain us as human beings; this greed - driven, money - orientated process, has created a population that is far outstripping the earth's ability to support it, and there's no way back.

If it was a past course of conduct (unlawful detention, intrusion into privacy, unacceptable pollution), they may award damages for human rights breaches.

If the IACHR decide that it is a serious breach of human rights to allow the cumulative effect of lawful pollution to affect human health in nearby communities, the US EPA will have to change how it regulates cumulative effects.