Sentences with phrase «if humanity»

Human rights should have never been the subject of any changes, as they are the natural order, and so naturally dependent on humanity, but if humanity is changing, human rights will also consequently change.

As people have stated, a case can be made that if humanity can't keep this planet habitable for us, then our species doesn't deserve to propagate.

The bottom line is that Keystone is a gateway to a huge pool of carbon - intensive fuel most of which must be left in the ground — along with most of the world's coal and unconventional oil and gas — if humanity is to avoid multiple devastating impacts that may be beyond adaptation.

Of course, if humanity got serious about protecting the environment, and now especially the atmosphere, the next 2 billion could do less damage.

Perhaps if humanity could just focus on a sustainable future and set of related values this would help.

another quote from james hansen: It is easy to blame governments for the fact that we are marching inexorably toward climate disasters, as if humanity were a bunch of lemmings scurrying toward a cliff.

«Mountain glacier demise preludes the fate of the great ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, if humanity does not come to its senses soon.

«If humanity is to continue for another million years, our future lies in boldly going where no one else has gone before.»

In fact, The ManTownHuman manifesto explicitly calls for architects to «impose humanity's vision on the world around us», as if humanity has one vision or one voice.

Their conclusion: «If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [in 2008] to at most 350 ppm.»

If humanity isn't able to get it together and finds itself disappearing - the blame should be put squarely on infrastructure... and the men and women responsible for designing, buildings and ultimately using it.

Hansen and his colleagues summarise the challenge as follows: «If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life on earth is adapted, palaeoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385ppm [parts per million] to at most 350ppm.»

Reblogged this on Henrik Nordborg and commented: Unfortunately, if humanity made any progress in fighting climate change in recent years, we obviously forgot to inform the atmosphere.

So even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, the earth would continue warming for decades.

Scientists have issued a second warning of impending doom for the natural world if humanity does not make significant changes in how we treat the planet.

McQuaig's comments differed little from those of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney or the World Bank or the International Energy Agency — all have publicly acknowledged that two - thirds of the world's known reserves of fossil fuels will have to be left undeveloped if humanity has a fighting chance against climate change.

We especially want our global surface temperature reconstruction to be accurate for the Pliocene and Pleistocene because the global temperature changes that are expected by the end of this century, if humanity continues to rapidly change atmospheric composition, are of a magnitude comparable to climate change in those epochs [1,48].

«If humanity does change course, one could view [the Anthropocene] not even as an epoch,» said Steffen, the Australian climate scientist.

He expressed how these technologies will become inevitable if humanity fails to halt global warming.

If humanity could have an effect upon global climate events at all, it still does no good to destroy world liveliehoods for the sake of making matters worse by implementing good intentions which prove to be horribly fatal mistakes.

«They» should be demanding more not less of themselves, from all of the scientists and policy analysts to the various institutions, if humanity is really in such peril.

And here's the kicker: even if humanity is reckless and immoral enough to blow past the 2 °C roadblock and cook the planet by 3 °C or 4 °C, there are still huge amounts of known oil, coal and natural gas resources that will have to stay in the ground.

Racing Extinction features interviews with prominent scientists like Dr. Stuart Pimm, a conservation ecologist at Duke University, warning us that half of all species will be extinct within 100 years if humanity does not change its ways.

If humanity allows this breach of ethics, where does it leave our moral compass when faced with geoengineering?

At the shareholders meeting, Tillerson pointed out that fossil energy raises the standard of living for people and asked, «What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers in the process?»

He also believes that the damage has already been done; he disagrees with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which maintains that the process of climate change will be halted if humanity can reduce CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

«Our current approach is not working, and we need to do something very, very different,» because if humanity waits, the «dangers are profound,» Sachs said.

If humanity was bad, Scenario A would occur, but if we shaped up our act, then maybe, just maybe, we could avoid our doom and Scenario C would occur.

Most worrisome, if humanity stays near its current path of greenhouse gas emissions, the IPCC warns with «high confidence» that «the combination of high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is projected to compromise normal human activities, including growing food or working outdoors.»

Perhaps most significantly, the World Bank report wasn't even sure if humanity could adapt to a 4 °C world.

How is that possible if Humanity was having zero impact on anything «Earth» related 125,000 years ago?

It would be amazing if humanity actually looked to the Western men of ersatz science like Santer, Mann, Hansen and Al Gore for an understanding of the the world around us.

40 years ago scientists said radical change was necessary if humanity was to survive.

And if humanity does nothing to restrain climate pollution, the trajectory it's on right now could carry the rise to as much as 10 ° within the century.

Earth does not love us, Earth doesn't care if Humanity or any other form of life live here.

If humanity at least went vegetarian all that methane and CO2 would not exist, and there would be plenty of food for everyone.

If in the 2040s the Earth gets hit by a meteorite shower and dramatically cools, or if humanity has installed mirrors in space to prevent the warming, then the above scenario was not wrong (the calculations may have been perfectly accurate).

None of this negates the importance of moving to limit emissions of long - lived greenhouse gases; the analysis just reinforces the reality that while that effort proceeds, there's plenty of other work to do, as well, if humanity desires a relatively smooth journey in this century (as was recently stressed by Robert Verchick here).

When and if humanity can find the collective will to trancend the illusion of the separation (a separate - self) we will enter the next stage of our evolution.

If humanity gets truly serious about emissions reduction — and by serious I mean «World War II serious» in both scale and urgency — we could go to near - zero global emissions in, say, two decades and then quickly go carbon negative.

It would be an eternal tragedy if humanity's greed makes for an impoverished planet.

In fact, if humanity takes no action and this century will bring a temperature rise of 2 ºC, 3 ºC or even more, the current discussions over whether the 14th Century was a few tenths of a degree warmer or the 17th a few tenths cooler than previously thought will look rather academic.

If Humanity were to vanish from the face of the earth tomorrow we would still see warming, partly because of the long term affects of the CO2 we have already added to the environment.

Finding ways to keep such cities functional — and in particular mobile — as the human growth spurt hits a crest in the next few decades is vitally important if humanity is to experience a relatively smooth journey in what some have called «the century of the city.»

Here's a roundup of reader reactions to the idea that a sustained energy quest should be an organizing principle if humanity wants to avoid hard knocks in the next few decades.

So even if humanity isn't driven to Arctic shores by climate calamity at lower latitudes, it's a sure bet that the far north will be an ever busier place.

We will never return to the geophysical history the world would have had if humanity had not emerged.

You are the commander of an elite warrior platoon and find yourself in the midst of large - scale war events, and your actions will determine whether blood - hungry monsters will destroy our planet, or if humanity will come out victorious!

That's pretty brutal, but probably «realistic» in the sense that if humanity was in this situation and could do this, I doubt it would be too troubling to teh decider (s) to give the go ahead to this.

Just like if humanity were actually going into space to meet new species, EA and BioWare are making sure they pack plenty of guns.