Sentences with phrase «problem of carbon pollution»

In June last year, he said Keystone could be built only if it «does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution».

Obama said that the pipeline could be built only if it «does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution ``.

President Obama has said that he would approve the pipeline only if it «does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

«Our national interest will be served only if this project doesn't significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,» Obama said.

This is the key line: «our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

«Significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution» is vague and toothless.

And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.

«Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

By any reasonable standard, an infrastructure project that has no perceptible or verifiable impact on global - mean surface temperature can not «significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

In June 2013, President Obama declared in his Georgetown University climate speech that he would approve the KXL «only if the project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

Erikson and Lazarus begin and end their study by quoting President Obama's announcement that the decisive question for him is whether the KXL would «significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

While the IHS report no doubt will have little effect on pipeline opponents — less than 15 percent of Americans in this recent survey — it should get the attention of the president, who has said the Keystone XL should be built only if it would serve the national interest and not «significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

This would be a great solution to the problems of carbon pollution if it worked, but unfortunately it's hopelessly uneconomic

On that basis, we maintain that KXL does not pass the President's key test: that it should not «significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution» [1].

As to the controversial Keystone Pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast, Obama said that the pipeline would not be approved if it worsens climate change: «our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

On that hot day at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., President Obama said, «Our national interest will be served only if this [Keystone XL] project doesn't significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

... In the coming months your administration will be making key decisions regarding fossil fuel development — including the Keystone XL pipeline, fracking on public lands, and drilling in the Arctic ocean — that will either set us on a path to achieve the clean energy future we all envision or will significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.

As was the case following his major climate speech in June, President Obama has left himself wiggle room with his comment that he would only approve the project if it «does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.»

So this problem of carbon pollution and its terrifying consequences is not the result of inaction; it's the result of affirmative action created by the Department of Energy and other defendants to create that fossil fuel energy system for our nation.