Until we reclaim this connection to our humanity, our bodies, and nature, we won't be able to completely connect with
issues like climate change because a chasm exists between us and what's happening.
Not exact matches
Shareholders need disclosure on
issues like political spending and
climate change because there is material risk that can affect the bottom line.»
It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the scientific perspective
because what we are finding right now with
issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks
like this
because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.
President Obama has had to resort to executive steps on
climate change,
like writing new carbon dioxide regulations,
because the path to even modest legislative solutions (as on so many other
issues) is blocked by the inevitability of filibusters under the the 60 - vote supermajority in the Senate.
Because, in order to really make a dent in
climate change and
issues with peak oil, it's going to take both conservation and nifty new technologies
like acres of algae to save our hides.
In other words, it feels to me
like there's some sort of distorted feedback loop, wherein candidates don't raise environmental
issues because they think they may be controversial and divisive (though, as McCain or my dad's generation of Republicans show, the planet obviously crosses party lines), and the public doesn't raise
climate issues enough
because it apparently isn't on the political menu,
like religion at dinner parties, but that doesn't mean we don't believe (in
climate change or the need for our
change).
Climate change expertise is «critical» to a company
like Exxon
because of the environmental
issues associated with its operations, according to the resolution, filed last month.
This policy matters to me
because,
like you, I recognize
climate change as a central
issue of our time that affects us all.
We should be addressing the meanings that divide us on an
issue like this,
because they divide us on lots of things — not just the use of violence by individuals of one race on those of another, or even the use of it by the police against private citizens, but also matters as diverse as whether
climate change is occurring or whether schools should vaccinate pre-adolescent girls against HPV.
Many homeowners, businesses and non-profits go solar
because they are focused on minimizing environmental
issues like climate change and health problems related to carbon emissions.
And finally I have been encountering a lot of greenies who respond to
issues like sea turtle conservation with a shrug and «But until we tackle
climate change anything we do to save sea turtles is a waste
because climate change will just kill them all off anyway.»
This was really an instance of domestic politics trumping policy, and
because domestic politics said, «Your base doesn't
like Kyoto, doesn't think global
climate change is a real
issue, and hates regulation,» we never talked about the things that we were doing that were addressing the
issue.
And,
because climate change touches almost every aspect of Earthjustice's work, we'll continue to defend and protect our core
issues like protecting and preserving wildlife and wild places.
Because when someone
like DiCaprio uses his A-List profile to raise awareness about
climate change, he can get people talking about the
issue in a way few others can, bringing the message to millions and taking
climate action mainstream.
This is an important question,
because (as I have shown in previous research) negativity toward scientists is associated with the rejection of scientific consensus on
issues like climate change.
It's understandable to take that position when alarmists are telling you things
like don't have more kids and extreme things
like that, but at the same time just
because scientists were wrong about global freezing in the 70s doesn't mean the current
climate change issue isn't worth giving serious thought.