Sentences with phrase «risk changed the debate»

«Having the SEC say that climate is a material risk changed the debate,» she says.

Not exact matches

What makes climate change different, they say, is that there are five new variables: uncertain and fragmented environmental legislation and regulations; the reactions of capital and insurance markets to emerging business opportunities (and matching risks) posed by climate change; stakeholder activism; pending litigation and the rapidly evolving scientific debate over proper responses to climate change.

The forthcoming Live Earth concert, organised by Al Gore to raise awareness of climate change, has not really educated people on the issues surrounding change and instead risks closing off debate, he concluded.

«After helping to lead the debate in changing the balance of our economy in a more sustainable direction, you are now turning your back on green industry and risk undermining the UK's growing reputation around the world for leadership in this field,» he wrote.

One party insider said there has been a fierce debate within the Miliband circle between those who believe that the reforms are a key test of his leadership and that a failure to introduce radical change would substantially damage his credibility - and those who feel he risks putting the party's financial viability at risk by allowing union members to opt out of their so - called political levy contributions to the party.

«It is time to move on from the fake debate over whether climate change is real or poses a risk, and onto the worthy debate about what actions we must take to avoid a climate catastrophe,» he said in an email.

«Too often in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global warming in excess of 2 °C represents a threat to humanity,» says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, College Park.

Starting from the same kernel of scientific truth as did The Day After Tomorrow — that global warming could disrupt ocean currents in the North Atlantic — a study commissioned by the Pentagon, of all organizations, concluded that the «risk of abrupt climate change... should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.»

Harvard University risk analyst James Hewitt compares the food quandary to the climate change debate: When do we know enough to alter the way we act?

Doug Reeves suggests that leaders start the conversation with a discussion of the principles on which all stakeholders can agree; make clear what will not change under the new grading policy; be accurate in their risk analysis; and engage in systems thinking to reframe the grading debate from «my grading policies for my classroom» to a collegial responsibility for the decisions of every teacher and administrator in the system.

For years the debate over fuel economy has been about making cars smaller and lighter, changes that could put people at greater risk of dying or being injured in crashes.

This could then lead to a wider debate about how best to respond to climate change risks in a complex world with an uncertain future.

That is bound to lead to fights over aid as recipient countries debate which can prove its risk (drought, flooding or otherwise) is related to climate change, as opposed to garden - variety climate extremes.

I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed.

But as this is not the case, the conclusions have little bearing on policy debates on the severity of climate change risks from multiple exposure pathways.

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

CCAFS: International climate change debates are often based upon simplistic assumptions of how men and women perceive and address risks and uncertainty.

««A sensible debate,» Lilley writes, «has been averted by pretending that the Climate Change Act is virtually costless, that there are not more cost - effective ways of meeting these targets and that the climate risks averted are imminent, not centuries hence.»

«Successfully reframing the climate debate in the United States from one based on environmental values to one based on health values... holds great promise to help American society better understand and appreciate the risks of climate change...» — George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication, May 9change...» — George Mason University, Center for Climate Change Communication, May 9Change Communication, May 9, 2011

The Stern Review and the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC together seem to have silenced the public debate on the reality of the risks of climate change.

There's a real debate that needs to be had on the values, economics, and politics associated with the risks of climate change; lets have that debate in the context of a rational backdrop of what we understand about the climate system, along with the uncertainties and unknowns.

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.

As the interpretation of infinity in economic climate models is essentially a debate about how to deal with the threat of extinction, Mr Weitzman's argument depends heavily on a judgement about the value of life... A lack of reliable data exacerbates the profound methodological and philosophical difficulties faced by climate change economists... The United Nations conference in Paris this December offers a chance to take appropriate steps to protect future generations from this risk... http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/07/climate-change (MOST COMMENTING ARE NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED)

The debates are not about CO2 as a GHG etc, but about the degrees of risk and uncertainty in the climate change arguments.

Carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy have significant risks and trade - offs — and face a great deal of uncertainty in their development, cost and eventual deployment, leading many environmentalists to argue that they should be left out of the conversation when debating steps forward on climate change.

«While the future is uncertain, the debate about whether climate change is a material risk for fossil fuel companies is settled.

If this blog — now starting its NINTH year — has done nothing else, it has asked the likes of Greenpeace activists for debate about «the risks a changing climate poses to the poor and vulnerable and how to tackle that without undermining the economic livelihoods of those same people».

It is that movement which prefigures all cost - benefit analyses and debates about risk and the management of risk, be it risk from terrorism, climate change or drunken behaviour.

In pushing to open up climate change debates to non-scientific disciplines, Hulme runs the risk perhaps of attracting accusations of not only «denier», but also of «relativist», which is almost as dirty a word in scientific circles.

Given all the reports, and all the evidence, the environment minister is surely exactly the right person to discuss and debate the extent to which the warming and changing climate is contributing to increasing risks including bushfire risk, the extent to which the Australian government is prepared to contribute to global efforts to combat it, and the way its domestic policy will work.

Posted in Media and the Public Tagged al gore, anthony watts, carbon dioxide, censorship, climate change, climategate, communication, copenhagen, credibility, CRU, cuccinelli, debate, denial, education, environment, global warming, greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases, hockey stick, inhofe, journalism, media, nasa, politics, republican, risk management, science, skeptic, sustainability, swifthack, united states 147 Comments

There's no debating that N. American forests are at risk from many insults, and that climate change looms large in the list of threats.

«This book by Mike Hulme simply is vital for anyone interested in the global climate change debate and for those that seek challenging arguments in understanding the role of individual and social behaviour when confronted with perceived or real global risk issues.

«Too often in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global warming in excess of 2 °C represents a threat to humanity,» says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, College Park.

When a finding indicates that climate change is proceeding more slowly rather than faster than expected, they are slightly more worried that it «may provoke criticism among his peers», «might bring too much uncertainty to the public debate» and could «put the credibility of climate science at risk».

Leo Hickman in the Guardian asks where the debate is about fracking's climate change risks, particulary on the second point.

My intent was mainly to draw attention hoping that debates about change would reflect the centrality of the public interest and the risk of corrupting self - interest.

It is enough to say that even though most, if not all, of us are not artificial intelligence specialists, we feel the need to debate, to ponder, to reflect on risks accruing from the use of AI in the legal domain but also that we do not want to miss the potential huge benefits of any big technological change.

The move to develop the technology finds Purse pitching its implementation - one that is today an alternative to versions by Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited - as a third option in the scaling debate that would bring about a block size increase and malleability fix via soft fork, or a change that doesn't risk splitting the bitcoin blockchain.

Debate the macroeconomic trends and changes from the new tax law guiding the current state of the capital stack as well as new exposure risks from HVADC and the best alternative asset classes and markets offering signs of growth following the halt in speculative construction lending.