Sentences with phrase «wealthy countries cut»

Although climate change threatens the world's small island nations, many can find ways to adapt and preserve their homes and cultures — especially if wealthy countries cut emissions and provide support.

The current proposition offered by climate alarmists is that if people who live in the more wealthy countries cut back their use of fossil fuels and therefore their human - caused CO2 emissions that the world can avoid the alleged catastrophic increases in temperatures based on the climate models.

Not exact matches

Corporations and the country's wealthiest were enjoying their tax cuts even more, and the Democrats» argument against the new tax law as increasing inequality got lost.

Presumably what the government is saying is that at a time when government spending is being cut it would be inappropriate to «give» taxpayers money to the IMF to help wealthy European countries.

Then they held the country hostage to keep their wealthy tax cuts because they create jobs.

It is widely claimed that the globalization of production helps to cut costs, and that (as long as gains are not outweighed by transport costs) everybody benefits; the truth of such claims is also strenuously challenged, and there is strong evidence that the real beneficiaries are powerful, wealthy, western countries, and the transnational companies they support.

The third option comes with a ton of issues, the most obvious ones being it only covers some of the population, drives wealthy taxpayers with poorer relatives out of the country, and plenty of relatives will want to or have to cut corners to refuse decent living conditions.

Lib Dems are resigned to losing parliamentary seats in less prosperous parts of the country, where the spending cuts of the past years have hit hardest, but had hoped to hold the line in wealthier places where their coalition with the Conservatives is less controversial.

That pact was abandoned by the U.S. Senate because it imposed emissions cuts on wealthy countries but let developing nations — including China — off the hook by allowing them to make voluntary cuts in exchange for financial support.

Other countries that are counting on kilowatt - hours to cut infant mortality aren't so picky, nuclear advocates note, and it would behoove wealthier parts of the world to help them gain access to energy, even if it's not the cleanest available.

Still, Ogden noted, a number of key issues central to the 2015 agreement remain unresolved — like what legal form the deal will take, how countries will prove they are making progress on mitigation targets and how much money wealthy nations will pony up to help poorer ones cut carbon and prepare for the impacts of climate change.

Wealthy, developed countries would make «earlier and deeper absolute cuts to their own emissions, on a path to near - complete de-carbonization of their economies by mid-century.»

In my opinion wealthy developed countries such as US, Europe, Japan etc should pay a subsidy to poor countries with rainforests on the understanding that forests such as Amazon, Congo, Borneo are then not cut down.

Indonesia is crafting policies — in part with external help from Norway and other wealthy countries — to cut its total emissions, mainly by slowing deforestation.

We are here to say it is not acceptable for the wealthiest country in the world to be cutting millions of dollars from schools serving our neediest students; to be cutting teachers by the tens of thousands, to be eliminating art, music, PE, counselors, nurses, librarians, and libraries (where they weren't already gone, as in California); to be increasing class sizes to 40 or 50 in Los Angeles and Detroit.

He listed areas where deals might be reached, including: finding ways for wealthy countries to get emissions credits by paying for the protection of forests in poorer nations; the Clean Development Mechanism, a system for encouraging other kinds of investments that cut poor - country emissions; and systems for sharing technology.

But late Tuesday, Bali time, the United States bluntly refused to consider language — even in the nonbinding preamble — that included any specific numbers for how much overall emissions from wealthy countries would need to be cut to have a chance of avoiding the worst climate dangers.

Just three years after the world's nations established the Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, a push was initiated to move from that agreement's aspirational goals for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to hard targets and timetables for wealthier countries.

European Union policy makers for the past decade have emphasized the need to implement a regulatory regime to put a global cap on emissions and to enable wealthy countries to finance ways of cutting carbon in the developing world.

India hasn't yet announced its overall economy - wide goal for cutting carbon, but is rumored to be leaving the door open for more significant cuts should wealthier countries agree to fund them.

And according to emissions specialists like the Tyndall Centre's Kevin Anderson (as well as others), so much carbon has been allowed to accumulate in the atmosphere over the past two decades that now our only hope of keeping warming below the internationally agreed - upon target of 2 degrees Celsius is for wealthy countries to cut their emissions by somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 — 10 percent a year.27 The «free» market simply can not accomplish this task.

Stop illegal logging and deforestation and assist the region in climate - friendly development: While wealthy countries need to act first and fastest to cut emissions, Latin American countries should also implement sustainable development policies that prioritise both energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Some climate scientists say a «war - like» mobilization is needed to cut emissions by 80 % by 2030, with full decarbonization shortly thereafter — or not even the wealthier countries of the world will be safe.

[1] In July of 2009, the G8 leaders meet in the Italian town of L'Aquila and announced the goal of reducing global emissions by 50 % by 2050, with the wealthy countries making cuts of 80 %.

Wealthy countries also have faced challenges weaning themselves off of coal, although the United States has significantly cut coal's share of the nation's electricity mix in the past year due to a newfound abundance of cheaper natural gas.

New research done at Ohio State University and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences indicates that if wealthy nations spent collectively $ 1 billion annually to pay landowners in tropical countries not to cut down forests half a billion tonnes of carbon emissions could be avoided annually and deforestation reduced by one - tenth.

The event exposed the tension that exists between incentives of developing countries to generate much - needed revenues from cutting down their rainforests, and those of wealthier countries to pay for rainforest protection.