Sentences with phrase «much energy arguing»

I just wish that we didn't have to expend so much energy arguing about things like formats and platforms.

Why are atheists spending so much energy arguing about something (God) which according to them doesn't exist.

And my three teen children don't - they are actually pretty appalled that we «adults» waste so much energy arguing about whether gays and lesbians should be able to marry («Kids don't care - and why's that bad??»

Not exact matches

Matt Ridley, for example, in his recent book, The Rational Optimist, argues that the oil sands are a much more sane solution to current energy needs than things like wind (too unreliable and too little output) and biofuels (wasteful use of land).

Amory Lovins has argued in detail that an environmentally desirable energy policy will also employ more persons in more desirable ways and produce as much usable power as we need.35 If we redefine the goal of efficiency as the enhancement of human experience, we are likely to find that most of the oppositions identified by Okun between equality and efficiency will disappear.

As I have argued, sheer single - minded operation on things — transforming walnuts into ice - cream topping, pepper - grass into impromptu salad — is not equivalent to full attentive engagement, however much energy it expends.

«How important is it for you to dictate what your child wears, and how much energy do you want to expend arguing about it?

He has now written Dragons 10 Entrepreneurs Who Built Britain (Head of Zeus # 30) in which he argues that Britain's rise to global dominance owed as much to the energy and creativity and ruthlessness of traders, industrialists and bankers, as it did to ministers, diplomats or military men.

Environmental activists argue tap water uses 300 times less energy to create and distribute than bottled water and produces much less waste.

First of all, probably each side could have followed a wiser political strategy: Remainers spent their energies arguing for the unlikely Second Coming of the EU referendum, while liberal Leavers spent much of their time arguing with Remainers.

Bosshard argued that much of the energy the World Bank helps to develop in poor countries winds up fueling extractive activities or is directed at urban centers.

They argue that there is something wrong with a world in which carbon - dioxide levels are kept to 450 parts per million (a trajectory widely deemed compatible with a 2 degree cap on warming) but at the same time more than a billion of the poorest people are left without electricity, as in one much discussed scenario from the International Energy Agency.

So I would be much happier if all this will go away, but I will still argue that this is a very reasonable explanation, and it could even be the right explanation for why [the] vacuum energy that we observed is so unbelievably small compared to what we would theoretically expect.

And if my brother and I argued with my father about race — he was an Irishman of the old school, and he hated the English so much he didn't have much energy to hate anyone else — but he had a mild prejudice against blacks.

Cagney's a great actor, of course, but both he and Day seemed totally lacking in energy, as did the direction by Charles Vidor — I swear there were only two camera setups through the first 30 + minutes of he film: Day on stage in a flat composition in front of musicians and a solid color backdrop with neither camera nor actors moving much at all and Day and Cagney in her dressing room arguing about something.

Some in the charter school movement, viewing autonomy as its most important animating principle, responsible for so much of the innovation and energy in the 3,300 charter schools across the country, argue that the testing regimen at the heart of the standards movement and NCLB will leave charters hidebound, soulless, bureaucratized.

Sixteen - year - old Brianisha Frith, for instance, argued that young Teach for America instructors have brought much - needed energy to the city's schools, while her classmate Kenyatta Collins, also 16, wrote that «some students feel like the teachers don't know much about us apart from stereotypes.»

They don't use paper or ink, and the books themselves don't take nearly as much energy to produce as printed books, so one could argue that e-books are more eco-friendly than bound books.

I myself have been accused of being a paid shill for the coal industry, because I argued that rapidly deploying solar and wind energy technologies, along with efficiency and smart grid technologies, is a much faster and much more cost effective way of reducing GHG emissions from electricity generation than building new nuclear power plants.

While I agree that we need to put much more effort into our energy conversion, I would argue that the letter ingores that the energy research we need was conducted in the seventies while citing aerospace and electronics research in the fifties and sixties.

Indeed, as I argue in this article, I think it will be absolutely essential that we shift much of our current wasteful fossil fuel use (e.g., shipping the same goods back and forth across the ocean, driving gas - powered private automobiles, and producing disposable consumer goods) toward building new infrastructure for long - term resilience (e.g., local food economies, low - energy housing, greenspace, water catchment and storage, clean energy systems, trains, and, yes, wind - powered sea vessels!).

And no one would claim that clouds could not absorb solar energy and be heated - one argue about how much the clouds are warmed from the Sun, but you can't say they aren't warmed at all.

Others such as Breakthrough Institute argue that policymakers should focus on generating low - carbon energy, so that it doesn't matter how much we consume.

But if these findings hold true, some commentators argue that this shows the need for a carbon tax, because much of the rebound effect seems to stem from the fact that energy efficiency (usually) saves money.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Some energy experts argue deploying large - scale solar projects would be a much more economical way to decarbonize California's energy system.

That is the subject of the short but pointed letter that UC Berkeley's Severin Borenstein sent to CEC Commissioner Robert Weisenmiller, arguing that «residential rooftop solar is a much more expensive way to move towards renewable energy than larger solar and wind installations.»

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

Energy - efficiency advocates, such as Amory Lovins, argue that, much as with many another technologies, as the market for them expands then they will get cheaper.

Prof MacKay argued that solar, wind and biomass energy would require too much land, huge battery back - ups and cost too much to be a viable option for the UK.

Our followers on social media think the answer should be «as much as possible,» but in our brief SACE argues in favor of a cap of 2,500 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy, likely to be mainly solar and wind.

Judith, this gives much more detail in points I have used to argue with those who say that green energy (aka Renewables) will solve our problems and we just need to get rid of those dirty coal plants.

As Dr. Baker points out, there is so much that can be agreed upon and acted upon, that we need not spend energy arguing about which gender is more abused in a PA case.