Sentences with phrase «most damaged the climate change»

I would like to add one more; the one I think has most damaged the Climate Change discussion, exaggeration.

Not exact matches

Here's what our anti-statist libertarian purists say in their most reasonable mode: We're going to have climate change and few babies; those are examples of the collateral damage of a society dedicated to individual liberty.

Going vegan is one of the most significant things that you can do to help combat climate change and reduce further damage to the natural world.

The results, shown in the above map (red means total economic damage and blue is total economic benefit; projections are for 2080 - 2100), could guide states and the federal government toward the communities most in need of help adapting to the changed climate — should lawmakers choose to act.

In contrast to reefs across the globe, which have suffered severe and continuing damage due to the combined effects of climate change and local disturbances, the researchers found that the coral communities on most of the reefs they looked at had recovered rapidly from this major «bleaching» event.

Also, although climate change is a concern for conservation biologists, it is not the focus for most researchers (at present), largely I think because of the severity and immediacy of the damage caused by other threats.

The amplification of flood frequencies by sea level rise (SLR) is expected to become one of the most economically damaging impacts of climate change for many coastal locations.

By continually hammering on climate change or global warming — a challenge for sure, but abstract and not immediate to most people's experience — we've disconnected from most people who have more immediate concerns; we've virtually stopped talking about the impacts of air and water pollution on their children's health, the psychological damage all of us experience when nature around us is destroyed, and so on.

The commentary by Parry et al advises us to prepare to adapt to climate changes of at least 4 °C, even though they recognize that it may not be possible to buy our way out of most of the damage (to natural systems, for example, including the irreversible loss of many plant and animal species).

That model has worked for other environmental problems, most notably the Montreal Protocol reducing ozone - damaging chemicals, but it is badly suited to climate change, which is better seen as a problem of economics, infrastructure, and innovation.

Those main conclusions are that climate is changing in ways unusual against the backdrop of natural variability; that human activities are responsible for most of this unusual change; that significant harm to human well - being is already occurring as a result; and that far larger --- perhaps catastrophic — damages will ensue if serious remedial action is not started soon.

Most likely we are already committed to at least some of these climate changes, and even if the models are wrong and these increased numbers of intense hurricanes fail to emerge in the future, Knutson and his colleagues believe that society still needs to work harder at minimizing the damage hurricanes cause.

The other features — already mentioned — were the identification of dominant regional concerns, the highlighting of climate change impacts already occurring, and the report's effectiveness as an engagement tool, which Mooney had just commented on, plus one more thing: the focus on extreme events, which are both most noticeable by the public and the primary source of economic damage in the next several decades, as Dr. Michael Hanemann (author of this paper) explained to me for a story I wrote about the California drought.

The most severe impacts of climate change — damaging and often deadly drought, sea - level rise, and extreme weather — can only be avoided by keeping average global temperatures within 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) of pre-industrial levels.

Most damage [ecological, economical] of climate change is not a direct consequence of a shift in mean temperatures.

The most vulnerable people in the frontlines of climate change require finance for loss and damage urgently.

The United States has a problem: runaway climate change, which will degrade or damage agriculture, biodiversity, coastal cities, and the social politics of some of the most volatile regions of the world.

So, imagine you are a climate scientist and climate change ideologue, and want to «take down» the single organization (or individual) that is doing the most damage to the movement (i.e. with the end result of thwarting CO2 emissions / stabilization policy).

«So, imagine you are a climate scientist and climate change ideologue, and want to «take down» the single organization (or individual) that is doing the most damage to the movement (i.e. with the end result of thwarting CO2 emissions / stabilization policy)» And why would you ever imagine that this activity was as or more important than working on evidence supporting your position?

Yet for the most part, rich countries showed up to Bonn empty - handed, and blocked progress on finance for «loss and damage» for those facing the worst impacts of climate change.

By far the most frequent arguments made in opposition to climate change policies are economic predictions of various kinds such as claims that proposed climate change legislation will destroy jobs, reduce GDP, damage US businesses such as the coal and petroleum industries, or increase the cost of fuel.

The world faces «severe, pervasive and irreversible» damage unless swift action is taken to switch to fossil fuel alternatives and cut carbon emissions, according to the most detailed climate change report in years.

Renewables — even the most rapid transition — won't stop climate change, but getting off fossil fuel now might (there are no longer any guarantees) keep us from the level of damage that would shake civilization.

One thing that is different about the climate change issue is that most of the uncertainty is in when rather than if CO2 emissions will cause serious environmental and economic damage.

However, most studies show that damages caused by climate change far outweigh these benefits.

• Assure that those responsible for climate change provide adequate, predictable adaptation funding to enable developing countries and in particular the most vulnerable developing countries to do what is necessary to avoid climate change damages in cases where it is possible to take action and to prevent damages, or be compensated for climate change damages in cases where it is impossible to take protective action.

Garnaut stressed that, among developed countries, Australia will be perhaps the most severely damaged by climate change.

During the Copenhagen conference representatives from poor vulnerable nations begged developed countries to: (a) commit to reduce GHG emissions to levels necessary to prevent dangerous climate change; and (b) to fund adaptation programs in developing countries that are necessary to protect the most vulnerable from climate change impacts that could be avoided or compensate for the damages that could not be avoided.

Yet questions of distributive justice about which nations should bear the major responsibility for most GHG reductions at the international level have and continue to block agreement in international climate negotiations, as well as questions about which countries should be financially responsible for adaptation costs and damages in poor countries that are most vulnerable to climate change's harshest climate impacts and who have done little to cause the problem.

Because those who cause climate change are ethically responsible for damages caused by them, funding for adaptation projects needed by those most vulnerable to climate change will not be generated.

Yet norms about responsibility for damages from human - induced climate change are well established not only by most ethical theories but also in a variety of international agreements, including the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN, 1992b), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN climate change are well established not only by most ethical theories but also in a variety of international agreements, including the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN, 1992b), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN 1change are well established not only by most ethical theories but also in a variety of international agreements, including the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN, 1992b), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN Climate Change (UN 1Change (UN 1992a).

If the United States is a very large emitter of gigs compared to most other nations in terms of historical and per capita emissions, why doesn't the United States have an ethical duty to fund reasonable climate change adaptation measures in and losses and damages of poor developing countries that have done little or nothing to cause human - induced warming.

A rational public and private sector response to the threat of storm damage in a changing climate must therefore acknowledge scientific uncertainties that are likely to persist beyond the time at which decisions will need to be made, focus more on the risks and benefits of planning for the worst case scenarios, and recognize that the combination of societal trends and the most confident aspects of climate change predictions makes future economic impacts substantially more likely than does either one alone.

As the climate changes, global economic output will fall, but most of those economic damages can be avoided with smart policy.

Evidently his mortal sin against the Climate Cult was pointing out that human - caused climate change is not inflicting greater economic damage due to extreme weather, an empirical truth that cuts against one of the most sacred dogmas of politicized sClimate Cult was pointing out that human - caused climate change is not inflicting greater economic damage due to extreme weather, an empirical truth that cuts against one of the most sacred dogmas of politicized sclimate change is not inflicting greater economic damage due to extreme weather, an empirical truth that cuts against one of the most sacred dogmas of politicized science.

Not in terms of compensating for losses which is explicitly excluded from the new agreement but in terms of recognition of the fact that there are impacts of climate change we can not adapt against and these impacts are particularly damaging in the most vulnerable parts of the world.

Talking about Loss and Damage without agreeing on compensation is unfair, and is delaying an urgent action to current and future destructive impacts of climate change on those most vulnerable.

The overarching justification for most climate change policies today derives from a political interpretation of Principle 15 (now called the Precautionary Principle) of the United Nations Rio Declaration of 1992, which states: «Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost - effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.»

If we are to avoid the most damaging impacts of climate change, we need solutions that are fast and affordable.

Sea level rise is potentially one of the most damaging results of climate change, but few people understand its risks.

Developed countries are historically the biggest emitters and are most responsible for the damage done by climate change.

Also, although climate change is a concern for conservation biologists, it is not the focus for most researchers (at present), largely I think because of the severity and immediacy of the damage caused by other threats.

In fact, today's climate models suggest that future changes in extremes that cause the most damage won't be detectable in the statistics of weather (or damage) for many decades.

It has a disproportionate impact on the world's poorest and most vulnerable, and we are increasingly exceeding adaptation limits, resulting in significant loss and damage, as documented by the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

''... freshwater flooding is «the most impacting natural disaster in terms of number of people affected and economic damages,» adding that «some studies in the literature (e.g. IPCC, 2013; Stern Review, 2007) seem to indicate that flood damages are expected to increase in the near future as a consequence of a global climate change,» citing the additional studies of Hall et al. (2005) and de Moel et al. (2011).»

But most importantly, the scale of damages from climate change are likely to dwarf the economic and environmental costs of oil spills.

Because no reasonable damage estimates have been incorporated into most IAM results, and because there is tremendous uncertainty inherent in even trying to make monetized estimates of damages that have yet to happen on a global scale, it is very hard to estimate, even roughly, the net benefits of mitigating climate change in the long run.

Worse, no consideration is given to the fact that worse economic damage will result from climate change if the views of most working climatologists are correct.

Secondly, most of the paragraph is talking about a report on the greater damage that climate change would do in the Arctic, so the reference is unlikely to help.

Yet most IAMs «do not include any estimates of the likely future damage due to climate change at all.»