Sentences with phrase «solve global environmental problems»

as their guiding philosophy, but deep ecology may have reached its greatest popular prominence when Senator Al Gore wrote in his 1989 book «Earth in the Balance» that, «We must change the fundamental values at the heart of our civilization» in order to solve global environmental problems.

For over a quarter century, EIA has been recognized by government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and independent journals, like Global Environmental Change above, for its extraordinary work on the ground and at the heart of solving global environmental problems.

Not exact matches

The problems facing us, many of them are global, like rogue nuclear states, like climate change, and other forms of environmental threats, like terrorists, like maximizing global wealth and prosperity, and none of these are going to be solved if we think of the international arena as one of each nation striving for its individual greatness.

As the global conversation grows around climate change and other political or environmental issues, innovative companies are working to solve those major problems.

To solve this problem, Pielke suggested measuring environmental variables from a regional scale up to a global scale as a more inclusive way to assess environmental risks than the top - down approach used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

When we look at solutions down the road for global warming, for other environmental problems, for horrible inequities in income and wealth distribution in the world, we would do well to remember Einstein's warning, «We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.»

The clash between Neste and Greenpeace highlights one of the key ideological debates over climate change: Business and politicians believe that a «technological» fix such as alternative fuels can solve the problem and also generate profits; many environmental groups believe the real solution to global warming lies in reducing consumption.

Two remarkable books that came out this year — Austerity Ecology & the Collapse Porn Addicts by Leigh Phillips and The End of Doom by Ronald Bailey — each makes the case that growth, technology, and accelerated modernization can solve the twin global problems of poverty and environmental devastation.

We wanted to know: how can buildings - which use 50 % of all the energy consumed - help solve the environmental problem of global warming?

Without bringing dietary issues to the forefront of conversations about environmental issues, then we, as a global population, don't stand a chance of solving the enormously terrifying problem of climate change.

The reason is that there are many environmental problems worse than the likely impact of man - made global warming that would cost substantially less money to solve.

In my nearly forty years of professional environmental activism, I have frequently had to rebut people on the left, for one or more reasons: their indifference to environmental problems, their antipathy to anything that smacked of representing or strengthening the scientific establishment (which post-modernists still vilify as being inherently tainted), and their hostility to any movement or theory which was antithetical to economic growth, which they still consider imperative to solving global poverty.

Where the ecomodernists argue that we must develop new and better technologies, especially energy technologies, if we are to solve environmental problems, in Laudato Si» we are told that «to seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system.»