Sentences with phrase «preventing dangerous climate»

«While we are responsible for playing our part in preventing dangerous climate change,» says Uday Gupta, the company's Managing Director, «we also future - proof our growth and profitability by taking climate action in collaboration with our partners in the value chain.»

PARIS, 12 December, 2015 — When 196 nations agreed a new treaty aimed at preventing dangerous climate change, mass rejoicing broke out, and signs of celebration still fill the bleak halls and corridors where the deal was finally hammered out.

No US national climate change strategy makes any sense unless it is understood to implicitly be a position on the US fair share of a global greenhouse gas emissions reductions pathway capable of preventing dangerous climate change.

To achieve this, it must advise governments and others on how to address the biggest energy challenge of the twenty - first century: preventing dangerous climate change.

At the same time, we also now know that preventing dangerous climate change impacts may require some form of carbon removal to supplement traditional mitigation actions.

There is widespread agreement among many observers of international attempts to achieve a global solution to climate change that there is little hope of preventing dangerous climate change unless nations take their equity and justice obligations into account in setting national responses to climate change.

Preventing dangerous climate change is critical for promoting global development.

Yet understanding how delay makes achieving the goals of preventing dangerous climate change extraordinarily more challenging also requires some knowledge about how increasing atmospheric concentrations affect global emissions reductions pathways options.

These methods aim to ensure that emission reductions are defined according to what science says is necessary for preventing dangerous climate change.

Now we are told that preventing dangerous climate change, requires GHG emission cuts which must be fabulously costly — and that (by the way) there is a 10 % chance that GHG emissions are not responsible for climate change.

IMO the net result is rates of population growth will reduce, but rather slowly and not enough to be a huge factor in preventing dangerous climate change.

A coherent deal with the United States in would be much more important for the goal (prevent dangerous climate change) than one without them.

It suggests that Earth will warm more slowly over this century than we thought it would, buying us a little more time to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and prevent dangerous climate change.

The challenge is to investigate the consequences and viability of different schemes, while being careful that it is not being (ab) used as an alibi not to work on emission reduction, which should be the first and foremost strategy to prevent dangerous climate change.

We aren't anywhere near that ideal, so the next best thing is to prevent to prevent dangerous climate change.

We need to rapidly reduce emissions of both of these gases to prevent dangerous climate change, not one or the other.»

«Negotiators now know that countries can be taken to court if they don't agree to what is necessary to prevent dangerous climate change.»

Shell does too little to prevent dangerous climate change.

Driven by the climate science, the international community is increasingly concerned about the need to set a long - term emission reduction strategy so as to me et a target that will prevent dangerous climate change, or at least, as some dangerous climate change appears unavoidable, limiting the damage.

And so under this existing binding international law, nations have the ability to make choices that make sense for them on how they will keep their GHG emissions at levels that in combination with the GHG emissions of other countries will prevent dangerous climate change.

That is time which we do not have if we want to prevent dangerous climate change.»

The US obligation to reduce its emissions is terminated only when it is below levels required by fair global allocations that will prevent dangerous climate change although even in this case an argument can be made that any nation that could reduce emissions further should do so to avoid catastrophic harm to others.

Given that the mainstream scientific community now believes that the world is quickly running out of time to prevent dangerous climate change, the moral problems with waiting until all climate scientific uncertainties are resolved are unfortunately becoming obvious.

Although it is beyond the scope of this entry to explain the following in the detail such a conclusion deserves, all ethical theories would require that developed nations to reduce their emissions to levels more stringent than levels of emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change.

By signing the UN climate treaty, the State once again expressly accepted its responsibility for the national emission level and in this context accepted the obligation to reduce emissions as much as needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

There's no chance of doing it unless its tied in with a clear message that this is necessary to prevent dangerous climate change.

The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low - carbon electricity and energy efficiency will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030.

While it is proving difficult to shut down the oil flow from the Deepwater Horizon site, the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to prevent dangerous climate change is truly civilization challenging.

Deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions are urgently needed to prevent dangerous climate change, but they must be complemented by reductions in short - lived climate pollutants, which produce a strong global...

Negotiations on the international climate regime have begun in Warsaw at a time when the scientific community, including the IPCC in its recent report on the Physical Basis for Climate Change Science and UNEP in its just released Emissions Gap Report, are advising the international community that the world is running out of time to prevent dangerous climate change.

In other words, to promote our own security, the United States and other rich countries may have to forge a partnership with China, India and others to develop a full range of creative ideas, technologies and policies to prevent dangerous climate change.

I regard the UNFCCC policies that specify a single emissions target with a specified timetable to lack robustness: on the one hand, this might not be enough to prevent dangerous climate change, and on the other hand, it might not be necessary.

The ClimateWorks Foundation - which «supports public policies that prevent dangerous climate change and promote global prosperity», with money from the Hewlett - Packard and McKnight families.

A new deal to tackle climate change expected to be agreed in Paris in December is unlikely to prevent dangerous climate change, energy secretary Ed Davey has warned.

In fact the decision at COP 2o in Lima in December of 2014 encouraged the United States and all countries to explain why its INDC was fair and sufficiently ambitious to prevent dangerous climate change.

In this regard, the staggering enormity of the current challenge to the world to prevent dangerous climate change is rarely commented on in the US media despite the fact the 25 year delay in facing this problem has now made the problem a civilization challenging problem.

Although President Obama defended the new rules on the basis that they were necessary to prevent dangerous climate change, that time was running out to do so, and that the rules would protect human health of US citizens, the speech failed to develop some of the obvious profound implications for climate policy of the conclusion that climate change is a moral problem, although President Obama did assert twice in the speech that climate change is a moral problem.

Although there has been a positive response to the Obama commitments to reduce US ghg emissions, there is also great international concern that national INDCs, including the US commitments, are not nearly ambitious enough to prevent dangerous climate change.

One of the reasons the world is now running out of time to prevent dangerous climate change is because fossil fuel companies and their allies in the US Congress has prevented the United States from taking serious action on climate change since 1992 when the George H. W Bush administration agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that the United States should adopt policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropocentric interference on climate change on the basis of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities.

A strong case can be made that the world is not currently on an emissions reduction pathway needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

Hamilton, Clive, (2009) Is It Too Late To Prevent Dangerous Climate Change.

With over 140 member organisations in more than 30 European countries - representing over 44 million citizens - CAN Europe works to prevent dangerous climate change and promote sustainable climate and energy policy in Europe.

These plans, known in UN jargon as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), must be produced by all countries so that scientists can assess whether their sum total is enough to keep the world from overheating by 2 °C — the limit agreed by politicians to prevent dangerous climate change.

President Obama managed to get fairly wide spread support for the Copenhagen Accord on the last day of the Copenhagen negotiations despite the fact that the United States was not able to commit to emissions reductions at levels to prevent dangerous climate change.

As we have seen, each year the tough issues have been postponed, the stronger national commitments must be to prevent dangerous climate change.

Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.

Therefore, from the standpoint of the environmental sufficiency goal, the Cancun agreements fail to satisfy the requirement that any post-Kyoto regime must assure that the international community is on a ghg emissions reduction pathway that will prevent dangerous climate change harms.

The magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reductions that are necessary to prevent dangerous climate change.

(a) They would adopt policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; (b) Developed countries should take the first steps to prevent dangerous climate change; (c) Nations have common but differentiated responsibilities to prevent climate change; (d) Nations may not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not taking action; and, (e) Nations should reduce their ghg emissions based upon «equity.»

The US Media's Grave Communication Failure On The Magnitude Of GHG Emissions Reductions Necessary To Prevent Dangerous Climate Change