Sentences with phrase «knew about climate risks»

Fewer than half of Maryland small businesses that replied to a C2ES survey said they knew about climate risks.

Not exact matches

Many of his mistakes are big ones: he bungles the issues involving reserves and resources that are critical to his core argument about oil remaining cheap; he drastically misleads his readers about the extent to which sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal - burning have been reduced; he trivializes the climate - change risks from coals carbon dioxide emissions by suggesting we know the impacts will be worth only 0.64 cents per kilowatt - hour.

This research workshop focused on the issue of how future climate change might affect transportation and brought together top transportation and climate change experts to explore what is currently known about the interaction between climate change and transportation and identify key potential risks.

«At the core of the plaintiff's lawsuit is the idea that these companies have long known about risks of their products... yet they took a course of action that resisted regulation and sought to keep them on the market as long as possible,» said Burger, the Columbia climate law expert.

There, well - known philosopher Dr. Henry Shue (currently at Oxford) gave an excellent and compelling talk about the (strong) moral / ethical case for taking action to address and minimize risks such as those presented by climate change.

It's also important to examine whether a world without such efforts — in which citizens had a clear view of both what is known, and uncertain, about the human factor in shaping climate - related risks — would appreciably change.

It was about the realities of climate science and long - term risk assessments and how they are a bad fit for the policy arena, no matter what your worldview or level of knowledge.

Exxon spokesman Ken Cohen either misunderstood or misrepresented the chart pictured above as he pushed back against an InsideClimate News investigation into what Exxon's own scientists knew about the emerging risks of climate change, and when they knew it.

So, questions will be around what interventions and policies are justified by what the current science already says — not just what it doesn't yet specifically know — about risks and implications of climate change.

IER is known for its efforts to sow doubt about the risks of climate change and for its misleading attacks on clean energy policies.

Exxon spokesman Ken Cohen either misunderstood or misrepresented his selected chart the other day as he pushed back against an InsideClimate News investigation into what Exxon's own scientists knew about the emerging risks of climate change, and when they knew it.

We will identify some things that we didn't even know about that create some uncertainty... So the point is that climate policy has to adopt a risk - management approach.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.»

What is quite bizarre is that they then invite the President and his Attorney - General to use a piece of legislation intended to deal with racketeers, known as RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), to investigate corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change.

Science can not settle all arguments about how the world should respond to global warming, because the answer to that question involves values, varying perceptions of risk, and political ideology, in addition to what we know (and don't know) about the climate system.

The cities say that the oil companies have known about the risks of anthropogenic climate change, but that rather than disclose what they know, the companies engaged in a decades - long campaign to deceive the public that the science is uncertain.

This report is one of dozens of internal documents unearthed by journalist Jelmer Molmers of De Correspondent and posted this week on Climate Files that shed more light on what Shell knew decades ago about the risks of burning fossil fuels.

What energy companies must do immediately is convey their scientific beliefs and real concerns about climate change risks to Congress and the general public, many of whom do not know what to believe.

Now in a free society what should we have done, and what does this homily have to say about how the people «in the know» should behave towards people, some not yet born, «known» to be at risk of premature death due to an inhospitable climate?

We know that, with only about 0.7 degrees Centigrade of warming manifest, the Earth's climate is changing in sharp, abrupt ways, and that all sorts of terrifying, unprecedented risks are now facts of human life.

Because of the enormous amount of research that has since been conducted into climate change — a sum estimated in the tens of billions of dollars — much more is now known about these risks, and much more needs to be known.

Since then, InsideClimate News published an exposé detailing a $ 30 million, multi-decade effort by Exxon Mobil to sow doubt about climate change, despite the company's own internal deliberations about known climate risks associated with fossil fuel use.

Bellona spoke with Alexei Kokorin, head of WWF - Russia Climate Program, about what has changed in what we know about the world's changing climate in the seven years since the IPCC published its previous report, about the risks and threats ahead, and what the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report can be expected to hold in store Climate Program, about what has changed in what we know about the world's changing climate in the seven years since the IPCC published its previous report, about the risks and threats ahead, and what the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report can be expected to hold in store climate in the seven years since the IPCC published its previous report, about the risks and threats ahead, and what the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report can be expected to hold in store for us.

The 106 - page complaint sketches a timeline of what Exxon knew about the risks fossil fuels pose to the climate, starting in the 1970s.

ExxonMobil, now also the subject of U.S. congressional and activist group calls for a U.S. Department of Justice investigation, knew about the risks of climate change since the 1970s and studied those risks internally for decades.

«Yet Exxon funded and publicly engaged in a campaign to deceive the American people about the known risks of fossil fuels in causing climate change.

In addition to concealing the known risks, Exxon and Suncor... directed, participated in, and benefited from efforts to misleadingly cast doubt about the causes and consequences of climate change, including: (1) making affirmative and misleading statements suggesting that continued and unabated fossil fuel use was safe (in spite of internal knowledge to the contrary); and (2) attacking climate science and scientists that tried to report truthfully about the dangers of climate change.

We don't know much about tipping points, but, as Howarth observes, «'' the world runs a high risk of catastrophic climate change in the period of 15 to 35 years from now.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, I wrote a very short book for the informed layman called «What We Know about Climate Change».

Yet Shell also made headlines recently due to new documents that reveal Shell knew about climate change and the risks of fossil fuel emissions as far back as the 1980s.

Ray Ladbury may be cranky, but he is a physicist who does know a fair amount about climate models and has expert experience with risk assessment.

That paper, which I posted yesterday, presents data showing that «conservative Republicans» know just as much as «liberal Democrats» about climate science (a very modest amount) and more importantly are just as likely to be motivated to see scientific evidence of climate change as supporting the conclusion that we face huge risks.

«What you «believe» about climate change doesn't reflect what you «know,»» argues Dan Kahan, a professor at Yale Law School who studies risk perception.

In closing, the amendment lends support to the ongoing state Attorneys General investigations in both New York and California into what ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests knew, and when, about climate change risks and why the industry chose instead to attack the science to prolong its profits.