This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climatescientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars.
It needs to be an informed decision with equal input from climatescientists and economists. In 1989, according to an Associated Press article, a UN official [said] entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sealevels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.
establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are airpollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The court further mandated that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must set protective standards for global warming pollutants if the agency found them to be harmful to human health and welfare.
establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are airpollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The court further mandated that, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must set protective standards for global warming pollutants if the agency found them to be harmful to human health and welfare.
The court stated that the issue arose “because a necessary and critical element of the hydrological damage caused by defendants’ alleged conduct is the rising sealevel along the Pacific coast and in the San Francisco Bay, both of which are navigable waters of the United States.” California Department of Food & Agriculture , No.
A few general resources: Sidelining Science Since Day One: How the Trump administration has harmed public health and safety in its first six months by The Union of Concerned Scientists I Heart ClimateScientists. . pulling out of the Paris climate deal may make China great again. And now the full list: . 2017.06.01.
National Audubon Society alleged that the rule “vastly expands potential sand mining projects in delicate coastal barriers” and further alleged that coastal barriers would become even more important due to climate change and were expected to mitigate $108 billion of sealevel rise and flooding damages over the next 50 years.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content