Sentences with phrase «thinking about climate policy»

Obama has only so much time left to spend on thinking about climate policy.

Not exact matches

«This is partly about reducing carbon emissions, but it's also an air quality issue that has become very, very urgent,» said Kate Gordon, vice chairwoman for climate and sustainable urbanization at the Paulson Institute, the China - focused environmental policy think tank led by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Previously, Pompeo has said that scientists think «lots of different things» about climate change and called President Barack Obama's climate policies «radical.»

«You always hear a lot of hype about the timetable of EPA regulations, and we think that the timetable is already generous in that compliance is, with the first target in 2020, still more than five years away,» said David Doniger, policy director for NRDC's climate and clean air program.

He's also a policy adviser to The Heartland Institute, a Chicago area conservative think tank known for spreading misinformation about climate change.

So, I think the discussion about how public policy on things like climate change should be crafted to also address broader or additional social ills

For my taste, the stuff about the climate denialists is overboard — the whole climate science and policy community is spending too much time thinking about the denialists and imagining that if we could just muzzle or convince these outliers that policy would be different.

So, I think the discussion about how public policy on things like climate change should be crafted to also address broader or additional social ills, like income / wealth inequality, or institutionalized oppression of almost any sort....

They are fascinated by the science, asking questions about the climate history of the Tibetan plateau and the chances of reaching environmental tipping points, as well as questions about western environmental thought and policy.

To do climate change ethics, one must continually think about globalization, foreign policy, international economic institutions, and issues of poverty alleviation.

But I think the discussion right now is about people realizing that geo - engineering is one of the many solutions that we have to take a look at, and that at very low cost it could provide us with a bridge of a couple of decades and an insurance policy against unlikely catastrophic climate change.

I think what Hansen did raises a whole host of very important issues about climate research, the science - policy interface, and how research is publicized.

I remember reading this quote in which you refer to Taylor: «I do not believe that «the experts» in any field should be dictating climate policy because there are plenty of important value judgments built in to those policies and experts however defined have no objectively better values than you or I.» I thought about that statement all day.

If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science - politics - policy discussions about climate change.

As signs grew that the Senate was in no mood to set up a trading system for curbing carbon dioxide emissions, as I noted how the climate policy debate had circled back lately to the emissions - capping plan for power plants that had been proposed in the 2000 Bush campaign for the presidency, I found myself thinking about the vacuum that's persisted where President Obama should have been on this issue (if he planned to live up to his campaign commitments).

This has significance for how we ought to both debate the climate issue and think about policy.

[T] he whole climate science and policy community is spending too much time thinking about the denialists and imagining that if we could just muzzle or convince these outliers that policy would be different.

Americans are concerned about the economy, and as long as they think climate policy is all «sacrifice» they won't support it.

Do you see regional energy sources or economic underpinnings shaping peoples» thinking about climate science and policy?

Heartland's policy positions, strategies and budget distinguish it clear as a lobby firm that is misrepresenting itself as a «think tank» - it budgets $ 4.1 million of its $ 6.4 million in projected expenditures for Editorial, Government Relations, Communications, Fundraising, and Publications, and the only activity it plans that could vaguely be considered policy development is the writing of a curriculum package for use in confusing high schoolers about climate change.

Most Republicans are skeptical about whether, in general, policies aimed at reducing climate change benefit the environment (72 % of Republicans and Republican leaners say these policies either make no difference or do more harm than good), and 57 % think such policies harm the economy.

The most recent records available document that the Kochtopus dished out $ 6.4 million in 2009 to front groups and think tanks that spread inaccurate and misleading information about climate science and clean energy policies.

He's also a policy adviser to The Heartland Institute, a Chicago area conservative think tank known for spreading misinformation about climate change.

That doesn't mean that I think that mature people can't, under the right circumstances, engage in productive risk assessment so as to develop policies in the face of uncertainties about the impact of ACO2 on the climate.

Whether you are working on the front lines of the climate issue, immersed in the science, trying to make policy or educate the public, or just an average person trying to make sense of the cognitive dissonance or grapple with frustration over this looming issue, What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming moves beyond the psychological barriers that block progress and opens new doorways to social and personal transformation.

ATTP, I think don't you understand that your kind of talk is similar in style to the hard core climate activists that go after the throats of anyone asking any questions about the science in order to drive policy (or is policy driving the science).

about UK Climate Denial Think Tank Global Warming Policy Foundation Sets Up US Fundraising Arm

And Joe Romm can shape much of what educated American liberals, environmentalists and Democrats think about any given energy and climate news event, scientific article, book, or policy proposal.

Wouldn't you rather see all the energy that has been and will be wasted counteracting and debating this video actually go in to constructive, practical thinking about all the many climate policies that we need to get passed soon?

Thinking about the problem in terms of temperature increase for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (which we will probably exceed with current policies and energy trends), even studies that reinforce the skeptical narrative of low mean climate sensitivity leaves some chance of warming greatly exceeding international goals and historical boundaries (say a 5 percent chance of warming exceeding 4 °C).

I also think you might be missing one of the main reasons scientists get irritated about government climate policy.

This was really an instance of domestic politics trumping policy, and because domestic politics said, «Your base doesn't like Kyoto, doesn't think global climate change is a real issue, and hates regulation,» we never talked about the things that we were doing that were addressing the issue.

But let's stop and think about the pundits» story, the political strategy that might allow the carefully crafted toolkit of the majority report to become a bipartisan way out of the climate policy morass.

It brings together policy, business, banking, finance, and technology leaders to think innovatively about how to leverage and direct the investment needed to combat climate change, and the power of markets to drive ambition.

Even among the researchers who find CE a policy option worth thinking about, the great majority analyzes those technologies not as a full - blown solution to climate change in their own right, but rather a necessary evil to supplement (neglected) mitigation and adaptation efforts.

United States president Donald Trump's assault on federal climate policy only got more people thinking and talking about climate change.

I also think that climate policy is, or should be, primarily about dealing with uncertainties, including tail - end risks that damages could be higher.

(Fwiw, I define myself as more of a «lukewarmer» since I see reasons to be concerned about warming and climate issues, but I think the imminence and magnitude of any civilizational»em ergency» are being exaggerated in many quarters — I'm more of a «policy skeptic» about the steps being proposed, if you care).

If you're interested in finding out more about who I am, my bio is available here, and more of my writing can be found at website of the Breakthrough Institute (where I direct the independent think tank's energy and climate policy program) and theEnergyCollective.com, where I'm a featured writer.

That's what two men named David thought, too, when they first met in 2008 to talk about a climate policy with very little support: a national tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions.

Though Lawson is not a scientist, he authored the popular book «An Appeal To Reason» about climate change and founded the think tank, Global Warming Policy Foundation, which he has said is advised by a number of «eminent scientists.»

Toronto, 27 February: In a new report published by London - based think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, zoologist Susan Crockford says that predictions that climate change is bringing about the demise of these iconic creatures have proven to be far from the -LSB-...]

The report «Oversensitive — how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming,» was released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)-- a U.K. think - tank which is «concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated» regarding climate change (disclosure: our Dick Lindzen is a member of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council).

Then, recently, a think tank called MAPS (Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios) published this policy paper, which gives their interpretation of the ERF, and we fell into a depression for it seemed our dreams of true climate justice were about to be dashed.

Whatever one thinks about climate change and climate change policy, one has to acknowledge that global emissions reduction programmes are extremely unlikely to result in a suspension or prevention of climate change.

How do you think about the role of fracking in climate policy?

Reading the Sierra Club report, I'm inclined to think the risk is less that policy makers will follow its recommendations and more that it will be viewed as evidence that those who care about climate change in rich countries are trying to stop poor countries from developing modern, high - energy lives.

Noted climate scholar Benito Mueller of Oxford University and Oxford Climate Policy has a new «Think Piece» called «The Paris Predictability Problem: What to do about climate finance for the 2020 Climate Agreement?climate scholar Benito Mueller of Oxford University and Oxford Climate Policy has a new «Think Piece» called «The Paris Predictability Problem: What to do about climate finance for the 2020 Climate Agreement?Climate Policy has a new «Think Piece» called «The Paris Predictability Problem: What to do about climate finance for the 2020 Climate Agreement?climate finance for the 2020 Climate Agreement?Climate Agreement?»

As Jonathan Pershing of the World Resources Institute puts it, such studies «tend to help you frame your policy ideas,» by forcing policymakers to think about different circumstances that might arise from climate change.

Think about climate change as it applies to many decisions, and link climate policy to a larger agenda of advancing social justice and economic development.