Sentences with phrase «oppose climate action»

Since 2008, the Heartland Institute has hosted their annual International Conference on Climate Change where dozens of climate change skeptics converge to discuss issues and strategies to oppose climate action:

By supporting clean energy, reducing its carbon pollution and ending support for politicians who oppose climate action, Walmart could help create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and accelerate the transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy mix.

It's unlikely, however, that the presidential election will be decided by voters who support or oppose climate action.

This week, Justin Farrell, a professor at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, released a comprehensive report in Nature Climate Change detailing just who these people opposing climate action are, where their funding comes from, and how the groups they work through are interrelated.

Barnaby Joyce had a long history of opposing climate action.

As Exxon's chief executive, Rex Tillerson has acknowledged the reality of climate change, but has opposed climate action.

Not exact matches

From a joint letter to the Telegraph opposing plans for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, signed by Christian Aid, Cafod, RSPB, Friends of the Earth, Tearfund, WWF, Greenpeace UK, World Development Movement, Portsmouth Climate Action Network, Airport Watch, Swindon Climate Action Network, Plantlife, Artists Project Earth, UK Youth Climate Coalition, Surfers Against Sewage, Climate Alliance — January 2012

Michael Mann added that «Donald Trump and his campaign still firmly reject the scientific evidence that climate change is human - caused, opposing the only action (a reduction of fossil fuel burning) that can save us from ever - more dangerous climate change impacts,» according to EcoWatch.

Pielke writes: «I have been asked by some of my colleagues why I raise these points, since action on climate change is a good thing and those questioning climate models typically are opposed to action.

Recently a coal industry official tried to divert attention from the actions that are needed to solve the climate problem by criticizing a specific paragraph in my testimony opposing construction of a new coal - fired power plant that does not capture its CO2 emissions (LINK, pdf file).

The full Presidential Climate Action Plan (as opposed to summaries) contains a comprehensive set of ideas to reduce transportation emissions, covering not only improvements in vehicle efficiency and alternative fuels, but also changes in national policy to promote high - speed rail for intercity travel, mass transit and telecommuting, and smart growth in urban development.

Looking at the politics of the climate problem, standing with those opposing real action are a bunch of drips, so to speak.

... the «Highly Concerned» were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual - level actions, whereas the «Skeptical» opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual - level pro-environmental behaviors.

To some, this seems to indicate that climate change these days is seen as very much a tribal issue - with many Republicans as vehemently opposed to the very notion of man - made climate change, as some Democrats are for all for strong action on it.

Further, these individuals and sections of society are opposing the actions needed to reign - in climate change.

But it would be somewhat simpler, IMO, if climate scientists were just telling it straight, as opposed to second - guessing the rest of us and spinning their results and pronouncements so that they «nudge» us to the actions that they think best, which may be nothing more than their personal politics or self - aggrandizement.

[I] f business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continue to oppose congressional action [on climate change], they ought to ask themselves, in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, «Do you feel lucky?»

When it comes to specific climate «actions,» the company continues to oppose hard emissions reduction targets, investments in alternative energy, and the «clean power plan» that Trump's EPA has now shelved.

«We vigorously oppose climate skepticism and our actions are proof of this.

He writes: I say this is a result of the action of climate phenomena that oppose the cooling... if my theory were correct, we should see a volcanic signal in some other part of the climate system involved in governing the temperature... I should see an increase in the heat contained in the Pacific Ocean after the eruptions Thing is, El Ninos release heat from the ocean, they don't store heat.

To be clear, Donald Trump and his campaign still firmly rejects the scientific evidence that climate change is human - caused, opposing the only action (a reduction of fossil fuel burning) that can save us from ever - more dangerous climate change impacts.

Both Abbott and Harper are strongly opposed to taking serious action on climate change because they see it as not good for the quest for ever more short - term profits.

Bast and Spencer's beef, however, isn't with the scientific consensus on whether man - made climate change is happening (although you'd be forgiven for thinking so, being that a favorite tactic of those who oppose action on climate change is to simply deny, deny, deny).

A constant theme of the Progressive Left is that the fundamental reason why America is not taking effective action on climate change is that action is being blocked by right - wing politicians in the US Congress and in numerous state governments who are being funded by fossil fuel interests to oppose anti-carbon legislation.

For instance, in response to economic arguments opposing climate change legislation, proponents of climate change action usually argue that climate change policies will create jobs or are necessary to develop new energy technologies that are vital to the health of the US economy in the future.

Tom Fuller, a constant theme of the Progressive Left is that the fundamental reason why America is not taking effective action on climate change is that action is being blocked by right - wing politicians in the US Congress and in numerous state governments who are being funded by fossil fuel interests to oppose anti-carbon legislation.

Chairman Eric Schmidt said the world's biggest Internet search company made a mistake in funding a political group that opposes U.S. action on climate change.

And in this episode of the nation's climate history, once again, the same industry that foresaw the ultimate end of coal as a main fuel for power generation later supported actions to cast doubt on the science and to stave off policies to address the problem, funding groups that deny the scientific consensus and joining the main industry group that opposed participation in the first climate treaty.

By simply opposing the factual claims of the opponents of climate change, the advocates of climate change policies are implicitly agreeing with the assumptions of the opponents of climate change action that greenhouse reduction policies should not be adopted if they are not in national self - interest.

BTI tries to stake out an independent position, but when push comes to shove they generally oppose serious policy action on climate.

The letter, dubbed the «We Can Lead» campaign, is part of a broader effort lending support for passage of the legislation, even in the face of unprecedented lobbying from vested interests opposed to the bill (or any real action at all on climate and sustainable energy).

This month, nineteen United States Senators called attention to the Web of Denial, a network of front groups that oppose any productive action to combat climate change.

They include: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Canadian Energy Pipeline Association Petroleum Services Association of Canada Propane Gas Association of Canada Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association Alberta Chamber of Resources Alberta Chambers of Commerce The Cement Association of Canada Canadian Council of Chief Executives Giorno organized a wine and shrimp fete in 2002 to allow CCRES members to lobby top - level Ontario cabinet ministers in an effort to oppose action on climate change.

Unlike Shell, BP has opposed measures to bolster slumping carbon prices, although the firm says it views climate change as «an important long - term issue that justifies global action».

Yet a purported global warming «pause» (more aptly named the «faux pause») is often used as an excuse by those who oppose taking action to curb climate change.

RP: I think that in terms of elected officials in Congress, those who were planning to oppose any kind of action have been able to use this for PR, for propaganda, to put the climate science community on the defensive.

Both chambers are strongly opposed to climate action policies.

Under the circumstances, opposing action on climate change and opposing the introduction of renewable energy are crimes against humanity; indeed, crimes against the whole biosphere.

However at the moment it appears that intolerance has taken root in the right wing and those leading the charge are prepared to lie and to damn the consequences as long as they oppose taking any action on climate change and many other things.

Criticism of climate science, and criticisms of scientists, has been a key rhetorical strategy of those opposed to climate action for decades.

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.

Questions to be Asked of Those Opposing Action on Climate Change on the Basis of Scientific Uncertainty.

First proposed climate policies should be opposed because there is too much scientific uncertainty to warrant action.

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.

A. Questions to be asked of those opposing government action on climate change on the basis of cost to the economy, cost to specific industries, job destruction, or other economic arguments that oppose adoption of climate change policies.

To place these sums in context, Robertson's support for EDF is equivalent to the combined total given by Koch - affiliated foundations and ExxonMobil to conservative groups opposing action on climate change during the same period.

C. Questions to be asked of those opposing government action climate change on the basis that other nations such as China and India have not reduced their ghg emissions.

Questions to be asked of those opposing government action on climate change on the basis of cost to the economy, cost to specific industries, job destruction, or other economic arguments that oppose adoption of climate change policies.

In light of this the following questions should be asked of those who oppose national action on climate change on the basis of excessive costs to the national economy or scientific uncertainty.

B. Questions to be Asked of Those Opposing Action on Climate Change on the Basis of Scientific Uncertainty.