Sentences with phrase «safe from climate change»

If companies don't get on a low carbon path soon, achieving a world safe from climate change will be out of reach.

It seems even the holiest day on the Christian calendar is not safe from the climate change zealots, including highlighting the harm it is causing rabbits, i.e., the secular Easter bunny.

Nowhere remains safe from climate change.

Not exact matches

We believe in healing the wounds between our police and our communities and making us all safer together, and we believe in protecting our precious earth from the scourge of climate change.»

Under the next White House Administration, Holdren said, science - based challenges that will require sustained, robust investment include efforts to ensure safe and sustainable food, water, and energy for everyone, reduce greenhouse gases, minimize harm from climate change already underway, combat diseases such as Zika, defeat cancer, improve quality - of - life for those who are aging, prevent devastating asteroid impacts, and send humans into space «not just to visit, but to stay.»

Jumeau said he thinks signing a global climate change accord that keeps countries like his safe from the threat of rising seas and addresses the resource depletion that military leaders say help foster extremism would do the same.

Co-author Professor Darren Crayn says the findings show well managed conservation reserves may be safe from many threats, but not from climate change, with the Wet Tropics World Heritage area seriously exposed.

Alan Boyle, NBC News Scientists say wild bumblebee species are being squeezed into extinction by climate change in North America and Europe — so much so that some of them might need help from us humans to find safe havens.

In E4E - New York, a teacher - driven policy paper from 2015, Climate Change: Creating Safe, Supportive Schools for All Students, presented recommendations to create positive, student - centered school climates.

In June 2015, E4E - New York members and current classroom teachers from across the city released, Climate Change, a policy proposal with recommendations for ensuring safe and welcoming school communities.

I'm on my way to a meeting in Sicily where several dozen scientists from a variety of disciplines and countries will be exploring the influence of climate change on insect - and tick - borne diseases, the spreading challenge of Internet security, the longstanding challenge of finding safe ways to handle and store nuclear waste and a heap of other pressing subjects.

That's disappointing: from Australia's point of view, a cheap, safe method of CCS would have resolved the climate change problem, at least as regards electricity, with no adverse impact on our coal industry.

Listening to Navarro Llanos describe Bolivia's perspective, I began to understand how climate change — if treated as a true planetary emergency akin to those rising flood waters — could become a galvanizing force for humanity, leaving us all not just safer from extreme weather, but with societies that are safer and fairer in all kinds of other ways as well.

«All countries are going to need to increase their ambition a decade after that because, when we look at keeping the world safe from dangerous climate change, you know, we realise we've got about half of the agreed reductions we need.»

They include, among many others, principles on what is each nation's fair share of safe global emissions, who is responsible for reasonable adaptation needs of those people at greatest risk from climate damages in poor nations that have done little to cause climate change, should high - emitting nations help poor nations obtain climate friendly energy technologies, and what responsibilities should high - emitting nations have for refugees who must flee their country because climate change has made their nations uninhabitable?

If he fights it on safer ground like health, the climate change issue could be revisited in the next term — and the Greens might be in a position to push it forward from 2013.

Safe water solutions can reduce the number of people boiling water, helping tackle climate change by cutting carbon emissions and protecting forests from deforestation.

Just when you thought it was safe to fire up the Hummer, there comes some devastating news from our friends in the climate change industry.

This question is designed to expose that those politicians who refuse to reduce their government's ghg on the basis that they are not scientists can not ethically justify non-action on climate change on this basis because once they are put on notice by respected scientific organizations that ghg from their government jurisdiction are harming others, they have a duty to prevent dangerous behavior or establish credible scientific evidence that the alleged dangerous behavior is safe.

This is so because in addition to the theological reasons given by Pope Francis recently: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

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?

This is so because: (a) it is a problem mostly caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of greenhouse gases (ghg) in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people nations must limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions, and, (e) climate change is preventing some people from enjoying the most basic human rights including rights to life and security among others.

We tested the hypothesis of bias in climate change publications stemming from the under - reporting of non-significant results (Rosenthal 1979) using fail - safe sample sizes, funnel plots, and diagnostic patterns of variability in effect sizes (Begg and Mazumdar 1994; Palmer 1999, 2000; Rosenberg 2005).

These features include: (a) it is a problem caused by some nations and people emitting high - levels of ghgs in one part of the world who are harming or threatening tens of millions of living people and countless numbers of future generations throughout the world who include some of the world's poorest people and who have done little to cause the problem, (b) the harms to many of the world's most vulnerable victims of climate change are potentially catastrophic, (c) many people most at risk from climate change often can't protect themselves by petitioning their governments; their best hope is that those causing the problem will see that justice requires them to greatly lower their ghg emissions, and, (d) to protect the world's most vulnerable people, nations must act quickly to limit their ghg emissions to levels that constitute their fair share of safe global emissions.

The report found this to be a safer target that would be compatible with the 1996 European Council target to limit temperature rise from climate change to 20 C.

Because it has been scientifically well established that there is a great risk of catastrophic harm from human - induced change (even though it is acknowledged that there are remaining uncertainties about timing and magnitude of climate change impacts), no high - emitting nation, sub-national government, organization, business, or individual of greenhouse gases may use some remaining scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts as an excuse for not reducing its emissions to its fair share of safe global greenhouse gas emission on the basis of scientific uncertainty.

More and more people are learning about how bad fracking is, even Robert F. Kennedy jr, came out and publicly admitted that Fracking is not a safe bridge away from fossil fuels and is worse for climate change then using coal because of the fugitive methane emissions that are released in the fracking process's.

The reasons are several and include: (a) Their emissions levels are very high compared to others; (b) Huge reductions in emissions from existing emissions levels are necessary to achieve safe atmospheric stabilization levels; and (c) Climate change damages to some people, not to mention plants, animals, and ecological systems, are already occurring.

Because renewables don't produce the greenhouse gases driving climate change, shifting away from fossil fuels to renewables to power our lives will put us on the path to a safe, sustainable planet for future generations.

«[B] urning fossil fuels has improved the lives of millions in the developed world by helping solve their biggest environmental challenges, purified their water and air, made their cities and homes more sanitary and kept them safe from potential catastrophic climate change.»

«Folks are too quick to blame human - caused climate change from the burning fossil fuels for the disaster events, and too slow to acknowledge that it is the technologies afforded by the energy produced from the fossil fuels which has led to better adapted (i.e., safer) societies,» Knappenberger concluded.

In addition to concealing the known risks, Exxon and Suncor... directed, participated in, and benefited from efforts to misleadingly cast doubt about the causes and consequences of climate change, including: (1) making affirmative and misleading statements suggesting that continued and unabated fossil fuel use was safe (in spite of internal knowledge to the contrary); and (2) attacking climate science and scientists that tried to report truthfully about the dangers of climate change.

From addressing climate change to advocating for a strong democracy, against Citizens United, fair tax system, workplace issues to safer chemicals, ASBC is raising up the voice, presence and power of business to build a sustainable US economy.

tcktcktck Also known as the Global Call for Climate Action, tcktcktck is a network of 450 not - for - profit organizations aiming to achieve a world safe from runaway climate Climate Action, tcktcktck is a network of 450 not - for - profit organizations aiming to achieve a world safe from runaway climate climate change.

We are a growing network of 22 New Zealand civil society groups, non-governmental organisations and social movements who support each other and our allies to take real action to protect New Zealanders and others from climate change, to protect New Zealand's unique environment, and build a more fair, just and safe New Zealand for us all.

Climate change impacts each nation differently, and each nation would have very different costs from lowering emissions to safe levels.

What I mean by this question is that climate change poses a real challenge to social change movements because it is gradual, delayed in its effects, and uneven in its impacts.The message that is coming from climate scientists at present, along with climate - hawkish public figures, is that we still have time to change — that international conferences, evolving public policies, steady but small annual emissions reductions, could still prove sufficient to keep us within the «safe zone».