Those efforts, though, won Hansen few fans among
opponents of action on climate change.
Not exact matches
The groups alleged that Soon, a prominent critic
of mainstream
climate science and
opponent of government
action on climate change, had not disclosed funding from corporate sponsors to journals that published his work, potentially violating journal policies.
For instance,
opponents of US government
action on climate change have for over 30 years predominantly argued against proposed policies
on two grounds.
The second most frequent argument made by
opponents of climate change policies are assertions that governments should not take
action on climate change because adverse impacts have not been sufficiently scientifically proven.
The
opponents of climate change policies have largely succeeded in opposing proposed
climate change law and policy by claiming that government
action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs
on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant government
action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive
climate policies as long as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies.
Opponents of US
action on climate change loudly now argue that the US should not act until China commits to acts correspondingly siting that China is now the world's largest emitter
of ghg.
With very few exceptions, the US press has utterly failed to cover
climate change as an ethical and moral issue while focusing
on the scientific and economic arguments against taking
action that have been made by
opponents of US
climate change policies for almost 30 years.
Are you aware that the claim frequently made by
opponents of US and other national
action on climate change that if the country acts to reduce its ghg emissions and China or other developing country does not act it will make no difference because
climate change will still happen is not true because ghg emissions from nations exceeding their fair share
of safe global emissions are responsible for rising atmospheric concentrations
of ghgs?
The
opponents of climate change policies have succeeded in opposing proposed
climate change law and policy by claiming that government
action on climate change should be opposed because: (1) it will impose unacceptable costs
on national economics or specific industries and destroy jobs, (2) there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant government
action, or (3) it would be unfair and ineffective for nations like the United States to adopt expensive
climate policies as long as China or India fail to adopt serious greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies.
This article, the first
of three in a series, proposes what NGOs, governments interested in stronger
action on climate change, and citizens should do to expose the obvious and deep moral problems with the most common arguments made by
opponents of climate change policies.
Therefore in the US, to determine the actual reasons for domestic
action on climate change it is not sufficient to examine the claims
of the administrative branch
of government alone, one must examine the arguments made by
opponents of climate change that have successfully blocked stronger
climate change action by the government.
We also explained that for over 30 years, proponents
of action on climate change mostly focused
on responding to the arguments made by
opponents of climate change that government
action on climate change was unjustifiable due to scientific uncertainty and high costs
of proposed
climate policies.
Advocates
of climate change policies need to better educate civil society about how
opponents of climate change policies are actually preventing government
action on climate change.
In fact, as I've been explaining to some colleagues and friends today, the proponents
of urgent
action on climate change like to conflate five separate questions into one question in order to tag their
opponents as being «unscientific,» «deniers,» «flat - earthers,» etc..