Then there's the problem of quantifying the variability of natural processes we know we don't understand because the estimates of various factors keep changing every year... you have to rule these things out to make
sensible emissions policy, you can't just wave your hands and say «there's no evidence we're wrong so go ahead and spend trillions of dollars based on this speculation over here.»
We are so far from that sort of
a sensible emissions policy that fine tuning the science is not relevant to that question in the short run.
Not exact matches
For example, who has worked to stop
sensible progress restraining carbon
emissions and oil demand, muzzled an open scientific debate on on these issues, kept secret the participants in high level meetings to develop energy
policy, vetoed one measure after another that would have advanced his country ever so little in a direction towards climate restraint.
«Fighting climate change successfully will certainly require
sensible government
policies to level the economic playing field between clean and dirty energy, such as putting a price on carbon dioxide
emissions.
A
sensible climate change
policy balances the costs and benefits of
emissions reductions.
I was relieved that finally someone was advocating for THE
sensible policy for carbon - dioxide
emissions.
Instead of Labor's big bang
emissions trading
policy that scared the electorate, it puts forward a suite of
sensible measures.