Sentences with phrase «very safe climate»

Not exact matches

Obviously you are safer buying compounded earnings cheap than dear, because if you have a stock at eighteen or four - teen or eleven times earnings, and it takes a very damp climate indeed to suppress a record at those ratios.

The scenery and climate are wildly different to anything you'll be used to, but the general culture is much the same, the popular places like New Zealand and Australia are very safe, and there's no language barrier to worry about.

Meanwhile we are safe to conclude it's a very threatened region — and one of the most notable hotspots of 21st century climate change.

Greater understanding could reduce the risks, but the climate system may be inherently too complex — and therefore the possibility of unanticipated harmful side effects too large — for us to ever consider geoengineering very safe.

But the Helmholtz team decided to look at the bigger picture: although climate scientists have repeatedly warned that the only safe answer is to reduce — and go on reducing — fossil fuel emissions, and although governments have acknowledged the urgency of the problem, very few really effective steps have been taken.

PARENTEAU: It's testing these theories which are very similar against a body of state law, in different states as you just mentioned, and so it's probing, it's trying to find a breakthrough case where you can find a state supreme court willing to make a really bold decision finding not only a right to a healthy environment, or a safe climate, stable climate, but also finding a duty on the part of the government to take real tangible action to address that.

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those nations most responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

If you concede that climate skeptics have not proven in peer - reviewed journals that human - induced warming is not a very serious threat to human health and ecological systems, given that human - induced warming could create catastrophic warming the longer the human community waits to respond to reduce the threat of climate change and the more difficult it will be to prevent dangerous warming, do you agree that those responsible for rising atmospheric ghg concentrations have a duty to demonstrate that their ghg emissions are safe?

Furthermore as long as US ghg emissions are exceeding the US fair share of safe global emissions, US ghg emissions are making the already very perilous climate change threat worse.

And in a change of heart, Bloomberg News quotes Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, grudgingly acknowledging, «The Volt is certainly a very tiny step in the right direction.»

FWIW it is my prejudice that the AR4 claim «very likely» «most of the warming» etc. is sufficiently weak to be safe against arguments that do not rely on very high sensitivities e.g. a random walk, with the possible exceptions of some unappreciated dominant forcing or that old standby that «the climate is chaotic to a degree that permits all possible outcomes».

Declaring a climate emergency is a vital step in building support for the very large changes required to restore a safe, cooler climate.

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.

Yet, since the world averages 6.5 CO2 tons of per capita emissions while countries like the United States are emitting 19 tons per capita, and the world must reduce per capita emissions to perhaps less than 2.0 tons per capita to prevent dangerous climate change, it is very unlikely that many groups or people in developed countries can make a respectable argument that they are already below their fair share of safe global emissions.

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

It's safe to bet that all of these voluntary flights were powered by fuel produced by the very companies he's now blaming for climate change.

For those who claim that burning coal is safe and harmless, the numbers tell a very different story, even without including the effects associated with climate change.