Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
My passions were an intersection between peace in the Middle East and climate change. I know how to understand a technology problem, break it into its components and solve it. I also knew I couldn't make peace solely through technological inventions.
In fact, even the current administration now is releasing recent reports indicating that climate change is real, that global warming is occurring, that it is heavily influenced by man-made objects and that it is something we cannot ignore any longer.
Climate change may not be the most important issue to every American, but strong majorities do consider it a major problem, and they aren't likely to take seriously a candidate who denies the science and who is plainly in the pocket of the polluters.
We have little choice but to place a certain level of trust in scientists - even when it comes to the model-driven speculative discipline of climate change. And, need it be said, most scientists take great care in being honest, principled and precise.
The entire planet is drawn to Indian culture and soft power. The global community looks to us for solutions to international problems - whether terrorism, money laundering or climate change. In a globalised world, our responsibilities are also global.
The people of South Jersey know that climate change is real and that it impacts their quality of life. They see that our streets flood almost every time it rains and they have seen that extreme weather events have become more frequent and more violent.
The solution to climate change is staring us in the face. It's energy policy. If we pursue a global clean-energy economy, we can cut dramatically the amount of carbon pollution we emit into the atmosphere and prevent the worst impacts of climate change.
So much of what we do addresses the issues that are associated with climate change, whether it's working to reduce emissions, whether it's working to nail down our renewables, whether it's ensuring great efficiency in accessing all of our energy sources.
Most reputable scientists agree that climate change is real and that the effects are likely to be bad. But nobody can say for sure exactly what 'bad' means. The safest and most equitable way out of this horrific mess is simple: cut fossil-fuel emissions.
I hope that in future Congresses there will reemerge a recognition that climate change is a reality, that our policies to meet our energy needs must also deal responsibly with environmental issues, including the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
Talking with economists, climate scientists, and psychologists convinced me that depersonalizing climate change, such that the only answers are systemic, is a mistake of its own. It misses how social change is built on a foundation of individual practice.
National diplomacy strategies are usually focused on promoting one's interests against others' interests. By emphasizing the global 'we' rather than the national 'I' in the climate change debate, COP 21 proved to be a case in point for a change of lenses.
Whether it is clamping down on tax avoidance by multinationals, setting ambitious targets for tackling climate change, or reforming the posted workers' directive to better protect migrant workers, European countries are working together to get things done.
We are sliding back into a dark era, and there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.
It could be the case that all the studies supporting a warming planet are wrong; science always leaves that door open, but anthropogenic climate change remains the best explanation for a mountain of data that scientists have been poring over for a century.
Climate change is a controversial subject, right? People will debate whether there is climate change... that's a whole political debate that I don't want to get into. I want to talk about the frequency of extreme weather situations, which is not political.
Decarbonization has already begun, and the appeal of a fossil-fuel-free world is growing - not only because it would limit climate change, but also because it would be more technologically advanced, democratic, resilient, healthy, and economically dynamic.
We cannot eliminate poverty without enabling developing countries to engage more people in economic activity that use natural resources, and we cannot resolve runaway climate change without creating wealth in a more equitable and less carbon intensive way.
The whole climate change debate gives - and there are all kinds of quotes from adherents of and promoters of climate change - the reason they're doing it is it's such a great opportunity to control, you know, pretty much, government, and control your lives.
When you talk to a Republican, many of them just outright say, 'Yeah. Climate change isn't real,' without assessing the facts, and it's a big problem. It's not a red or blue issue, it's a green issue... Not because of facts or science but because of emotion.
I think that if we want to cure cancer, we have to teach girls to code. If we want to do something about climate change, we have to teach girls to code. If we want to solve homelessness in our city and our country, teach girls to code. They're change makers.
Strong policies and innovation can make the difference for energy security, climate change, air quality, and universal access to modern energy services in parallel - in short, building a secure, affordable, sustainable energy system that is available to all.
There are great challenges before you, from the overwhelming nature of climate change to the unfairness of an economy that excludes so many from our collective wealth, and the changes necessary to build a more inclusive and generous Canada. I believe in you.
I'd like to make a fundamental impact on one of the most exciting, intelligent questions of all time. Can we use software and hardware to build intelligence into a machine? Can that machine help us solve cancer? Can that machine help us solve climate change?
More and more Americans are experiencing the direct impacts of climate change, from the wildfires in California, to devastating hurricanes in the Southeast, to drought in the Southwest. And they are choosing candidates who are ready to do something about it.
I have been very encouraged by President Obama's call to action on climate change both at his Inauguration and in the State of the Union Address. This is a global imperative. I also welcome President Obama's intention to pursue reductions in nuclear arsenals.
Climate change was a point of division between Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney. The president declared climate change a global threat, acknowledged that the actions of humanity were deepening the crisis, and pledged to do something about it if elected.
With an investment in our state's energy infrastructure to capture methane, we will create jobs, increase revenue for our schools, and protect the health of workers and communities, all while reducing harmful emissions that are contributing to climate change.
The direct risks from climate change are obvious: as changing weather patterns cause extremes of flood and drought, hurricanes and typhoons. These damage the physical infrastructure of buildings and bridges roads and railways. They are violent and disruptive.
There's something outrageously funny about the bold-faced lying that's going on, in a general way. Just the blatant denial of facts, whether it's climate change or crowd sizes. Every day, there's another blatant lie. I think there's comedy in there somewhere.
Both climate change and extinction are results of our tyranny over the nonhuman world and our domination of, and exploitation of, whole categories of each other - and those, in turn, are clearly linked to agriculture, the cattle-industrial complex, capitalism.
Building on our strong track record of supporting developing countries, including in areas like climate justice, human rights, gender and education, Ireland recognises that vulnerable communities need very considerable assistance in adapting to climate change.
The damage that climate change is causing and that will get worse if we fail to act goes beyond the hundreds of thousands of lives, homes and businesses lost, ecosystems destroyed, species driven to extinction, infrastructure smashed and people inconvenienced.
Both San Francisco and New York are taking bold, sweeping action to reduce emissions, make our infrastructure more resilient and improve the health of our people. We are also leading the charge against those who continue to deny the existence of climate change.
Of course I would disagree that there's a definitive science that has concluded that mankind has turned the earth's thermostat up and that we can turn the earth's thermostat down at will, we just haven't yet found the will. That's the argument on climate change.
People in all walks of life, and especially business, do not want to experience the collapse of cities like New York along with global finance and economy in chaos, but this is what business faces if we continue to attribute climate change to fossil fuels alone.
A number of major companies - from PepsiCo to Walmart to U.P.S. - have recognized that corporations have a responsibility to address the causes of climate change before it is too late. We do not have to wait for an international treaty or new regulations to act.
Meat is a mighty contributor to climate change and other environmental problems. The amount of meat we're eating is one of the leading causes of climate change. It's as important as the kind of car you drive - whether you eat meat a lot or how much meat you eat.
To be clear, climate change is a true 800 pound gorilla in the room. The effects of global warming threaten global environmental upheaval over the coming century. But for South Florida and the Everglades, it could be our death knell if urgent action is not taken.
Irish research will contribute to global progress and have the potential to help all countries realise the potential of their land sectors in addressing climate change - this means reducing emissions, adapting to impacts, and enhancing and improving carbon sinks.
People who have grown up in a world where this was not a concern and suddenly start hearing about climate change - it's very difficult. It's a very, very abstract concept. So we need to work on making it very educational and very, very clear, in very simple terms.
What happens if you stand passively by the side of the road with a placard saying, you know, 'Stop climate change' is you just get ignored. When you get on the street and block it, people start to have a conversation about this existential situation that we're in.
Yes, climate change is an existential threat, but there's also kind of this existential issue of why is it that as our society is progressing... things seem to be regressing and getting worse for a large number of people? Why is that happening? How do we fix that?
There is a triple layer of jargon when writing about climate change. You have the scientists, who are very cautious now because of the amount of climate denial. Then you have the U.N. jargon - I had to carry around a glossary of terms. It was like an alphabet soup.
Meat production is one of the leading causes of climate change because of the destruction of the rainforest for grazing lands, the massive amounts of methane produced by farm animals and the huge amounts of water, grain and other resources required to feed animals.
The media when it focuses on climate change at all, does so in terms of carbon emissions and how to reduce them. Only rarely do our leaders advance arguments about adapting our environment and our economy to the effects of climate change that are already inevitable.
If you take energy and climate change, you really cannot deal with the problems with energy and climate change without European co-operation at a high level. If you take digitalisation, it's an obvious area where European co-operation can actually make a difference.
Climate change is real and anthropogenic; and the 5th Assessment Report of the IPCC has left the deniers little room for manoeuvre, but they are swiftly morphing into a new breed that accept the climate is changing but like to suggest this may have positive benefits.
History will judge harshly my Republican colleagues who deny the science of climate change. Similarly, those Democrats who would use climate change as a basis to regulate out of existence the American experience will face the harsh reality that their ideas will fail.
As an explorer, I know firsthand there are many places in the ocean so full of life that they should be protected. Coral reefs and mangrove coastlines are stressed already by climate change and ocean acidification, and poor planning will just make their plight worse.