Sentences with phrase «serious threat to the environment»

While the livestock sector supports livelihoods of one billion of the world's poor, and its products provide one - third of our protein intake, it poses serious threat to our environment: it is responsible for 14.5 percent of GHG emissions, 29 percent of total water footprint of agriculture, and occupies 30 percent of the land surface of the planet.

Sunday's vote ended an energetic campaign by Swiss biologists to convince the public that transgenic laboratory animals are essential to biomedical research, and that genetic engineering can provide benefits without posing a serious threat to the environment.

This contamination poses a serious threat to the environment and human health.

Plibersek: There is a serious threat to our economy and a serious threat to our environment of not acting.

Not exact matches

The self - confidence of prominent spokespeople and main actors of the dominant system has began to hesitate and they have had to recognize some of the problems and shortcomings, particularly at three points: First, the inadequacy of the «market» to solve by itself some of the serious threats to human survival, like the deterioration of the environment and the depletion of the energy resources.

Lead author Dr Iain Gould of the Lancaster University Environment Centre, said: «We only need to look at historical examples such the American Dust Bowl of the 1930s to see that globally, the physical degradation of our soil presents a serious threat to human well - being.

It is not a good term to use to describe those who are rationally skeptical of the (not yet scientifically validated) premise that AGW, caused principally by the human emissions of CO2, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat for humanity and the environment.

Environmental Stress We believe that the most serious threat to human health is the oxidative stress caused by toxins in the environment.

«At this moment, when the environment and culture are so under threat, Huyghe's imaginative, uncanny approach to the serious ecological and social issues facing our planet tie his oeuvre to the ancient purposes of sculpture: they possess a shamanistic quality which tips the mimetic into life,» Mr. Strick added.

But «the science is not settled» that AGW, caused principally by CO2, has been the primary cause of warming since 1950 and, thus, represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless steps are taken now to curtail CO2 emissions.

This voluntary CO2 reduction plan would get you and others in the UK, who are rationally skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious potential threat, off the hook, while allowing Royal Society president, Sir Paul Nurse, UK environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, and other supporters of the «dangerous AGW» premise to «do their thing to save the planet».

this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment from anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the range of 1.8 °C to 6.4 °C by the end of this century with increase in global sea level of up to 0.59 meters [AR4 WGI SPM, p. 13]

AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of observed warming and represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment

How has this process been followed for AGW or, more specifically, for the premise that the observed warming since the modern record started has been caused principally by AGW and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment (let's call this the «dangerous AGW» hypothesis or dAGW, which Trenberth would like to see as the «null hypothesis»)?

The new political environment in the United States poses a serious threat to climate scientists.

The Paris agreement to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions is based on a precautinary principle declarated in the Rio conference: «Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992, Princible 15, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual//Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163» — Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost - effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

IPCC has sold a bill of goods to «policymakers» and the general public, which states that most of past warming was caused by human GHGs (AGW) and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless human GHG emissions (principally CO2) are curtailed dramatically.

Let's say that the postulated premise is that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of recently observed temperature increase and represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

To ignore these questions is to decide to expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceTo ignore these questions is to decide to expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto decide to expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto expose human health and the environment to real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto real risk before changing the risky behavior, that is, a decision to not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequenceto not act on a serious environmental threat has grave potential consequences.

«We need to educate our families, schools, institutions, faith communities, worldwide re: the serious threats of our environment and the amount of CO2 emission» Read more

That's why I used the expression «represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment» (temperature increase by 2100 of up to 6.4 C, increased droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, heat waves, extreme high sea level plus secondary effects, such as crop failures, spread of vector diseases, loss of drinking water from melting glaciers, etc. all as listed in IPCC AR4).

this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, if actions are not undertaken to curtail GHG emissions, principally CO2

Global warming poses one of the most serious threats to the global environment ever faced in human history.

and Cell Phone RoHS Compliant Computers Consumer Education 19 Wal - Mart Electronics Sustainable Value Network Sustainable Products 101 August 31, 2006 20 Topics To Be Covered Defining Sustainable Value Human Health and Environmental Impacts of Electronic Products / 91 % of people are in total agreement with the statement «I care about protecting the environment» ABC News / Washington Post Poll: 79 % of Americans think global warming poses a serious threat to future generations Source: AP Source: NASA RisingTo Be Covered Defining Sustainable Value Human Health and Environmental Impacts of Electronic Products / 91 % of people are in total agreement with the statement «I care about protecting the environment» ABC News / Washington Post Poll: 79 % of Americans think global warming poses a serious threat to future generations Source: AP Source: NASA Risingto future generations Source: AP Source: NASA Rising /

48 Growing Energy & Environmental Concerns 58 % of Americans rank «dealing with the nation's energy problem» as a top priority in 2006, up from 40 % in 2003 87 % of Americans cite home heating and energy prices as a «very big» or «big» problem for the nation's economy 88 % of US adults respond that «energy efficient» was very important in their electronics, appliance, lighting and heating / cooling equipment purchases Gallup polls: Americans» concerns about environmental issues have increased more than 10 percentage points between 2004 and 2006 The LOHAS Consumer Report: 91 % of people are in total agreement with the statement «I care about protecting the environment» ABC News / Washington Post Poll: 79 % of Americans think global warming poses a serious threat to future generations Source: AP Source: NASA

I ask for empirical evidence that human GHGs (principally CO2) have been the primary driver of past climate and therefore constitute a serious threat to humanity and our environment (the IPCC CAGW premise as outlined in its AR4 report).

Show me (and Girma) the empirical evidence to support the CAGW hypothesis, i.e. that human GHG emissions have been the primary cause for past global warming and that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless these emissions are curtailed dramatically.

It is the same old fossil fuel infrastructure that poses serious threats to the earth's climate and local environments.

And the uncertainty is quite basic: has AGW been the principal cause of past warming and does it, therefore, represent a serious threat to humanity and our environment?

The decision was supported by an extensive record of information supporting his determination that certain deepwater drilling posed a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or damage to the marine, coastal, and human environment.

I simply stated that the science is still very much unsettled on the premise a) that AGW has been the principal cause of past warming and b) that it, therefore, represents a serious threat to humanity and our environment.

Thanks for clearing up your position — as I now read it (and pardon me, if I still did not understand completely) you do NOT specifically ascribe to the notion expressed by IPCC or alarmists, such as James E. Hansen, that AGW has caused most of the recent global warming and thus represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

It appears from your posts here and elsewhere, that you are a firm supporter of the IPCC premise that a) AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the cause of most of the observed increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century and b) thus represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

The IPCC hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment is an «uncorroborated hypothesis» at this time, unless one agrees with Pielke that the recent decadal lack of warming of the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) as well as the upper ocean despite record increase in CO2 levels has falsified it, in which case it has become a «falsified hypothesis», until such time that the falsification can be refuted with empirical evidence.

Unless these data can be refuted they represent a falsification of the premise that CO2 is the principal driver of our planet's climate and that AGW is, therefore, a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment.

Although this would be a perfect opportunity for him to declare his own allegiance to both the environment and personal liberty, he instead implies that the only people who worry about «threats to civil liberty» are militant conservatives who want to «undermine public support for serious action to address America's oil dependency» yadda, yadda.

Many also question the scientific validity of the IPCC projections of future anthropogenic warming and its consequences, especially the IPCC premise that these are likely to result in serious negative impacts, i.e. a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).

The CAGW premise can be stated as follows: «most of the warming since 1950 is more than 90 % likely to have been caused by increased human GHGs and this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions, principally CO2»

«Downplaying the threats drilling poses to our climate, communities, and environment — as Shell continues to do — does not in reality make the threats any less serious.

So, Bryson, you can see that the uncertainties on 2xCO2 CS are great (as Dr. Curry has stated elsewhere)-- yet they are crucial to the whole premise that AGW, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, represents a serious potential threat to humanity or to our environment.

So, all in all, it appears highly uncertain that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming, or that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment.

The process should start with a validation (with empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation) of the model - based hypothesis that AGW has been the primary cause of past warming and represents a serious threat to humanity and our environment.

They do not exist at all for the hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the principal cause of past warming and thus represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment.

I would not call it «wishful thinking» to conclude that human CO2 additions have not caused most of past warming and, hence, do not represent a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment.

Hydroelectric dams have caused great damage to indigenous and traditional communities and the environment, but they are only one of many serious Amazon threats — new roads, railways, waterways, mines and other infrastructure all result in great destruction.

Hey, man, don't you realize that this very short statement is the key to the whole premise that «AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and, thus, represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment»