I would argue that we have a patriotic duty to move toward energy independence and clean energy. It is a matter of national security - energy security, climate security, economic security, job security, everything.
Millennials really don't turn out in numbers that people expect and hope for. Speaking of global warming and climate change, you know all these emails that WikiLeaks is dumping? I haven't found any on climate change. We got emails from Hillary to her campaign staff and her campaign staff to Hillary.
We have emails from donors. We got thousands and thousands of emails here that have been leaked and dumped, and I can't find any reference to climate change.
[Barack] Obama's out there saying it's the number one national security threat [climate change], and he's got his Joint Chiefs of Staff out there planning American battles, military engagements on that basis.
We are forward planning and strategic on what the planet will look like with climate change as we decide to go into various areas of the world if we have to.
I know it's absurd, but they're out saying so, and Hillary [Clinton] makes a big, big deal about climate change.
I can find them strategizing about any number of things in these WikiLeaks email dumps, but there's not a thread on climate change whatsoever. Why is that? If climate change were that big a deal to these people, don't you think they would be talking about it internally?
Strategizing how to use it, how to promote it, how to use it as a campaign aid? I can't find any reference to [climate change].
The whole thing [climate change] is bogus and made up, designed like they always do to scare you.
I think the hardest one had to do with suffering. It had to do with all of our church members and friends passing through difficult times. Sometimes it's the global climate: tsunamis, earthquakes, radiation. I think these kinds of questions are absolutely the most difficult, yet we need to be ready to respond to them because we have to be able as pastors to walk people through these valleys, these tough times in their lives.
When it comes to climate change it's all the usual barriers: greed, mendacity, ignorance, short-sightedness and so on, manifest in the extreme power of corporations, the weakness of government, and the indifference of citizens.
It's true that climate change is an unprecedented problem so it's not surprising that it's so difficult to address.
We need to use economic instruments such as carbon taxes, cap and trade, tax and dividend and whatever else to help incentivize behavior that will move us to a post-carbon, post-animal agriculture world, and make our societies more resilient to the shocks that are already baked into the system. But that doesn't make climate change an "economic issue."
Climate change involves fundamental choices about how we want to live and what kind of world we want.
Climate change involves behaviors that are individually negligible, whose impacts go far beyond the spatial and temporal constraints that define our sense of community.
If you have a flat, fixed view of state interest then it is difficult to understand why some states adopt aggressive climate change policies, even when that risks economically disadvantaging them, and other states do not even when it would be in their economic interests to do so.
If you look globally you see a patchwork of jurisdictions (nations, states, provinces, cities) that have taken aggressive action on climate change, and a patchwork of jurisdictions that have not. These various policies reflect the politics of each jurisdiction and the values of its citizens.
The Paris climate conference in December, 2015 was a recognition that countries bring their climate policies to international meetings rather than create them during the negotiations (much less do they receive orders from the international community and then go home and implement them).
Every country now has its own domestic political debate about how to respond to climate change. This is where the action is.
Climate change is not going to be prevented. It's not even going to be mitigated to the degree a rational person would want. As a result we're going to have to live with climate change and try to reduce the extent and rate of change as much as possible. This is not an inspiring or sexy project.
It's possible that we'll screw up the climate so badly that most of us will die and a few breeding pairs will remain somewhere in the arctic. What's more likely is that we'll continue remaking the planet, driving many species to extinction, killing millions of people through the indirect effects of climate change, making life even harder for the poor and powerless than it is now, and making it a little more difficult for the global middle class to live the lives to which they have become accustomed - in other words, business as usual, only worse.
When I first started studying climate change back in the 1980s, I was struck by how difficult it was be for people to understand this issue.
Climate scientists think of nothing but climate and then express their concerns in terms of constructs such as global mean surface temperature. But we live in a world in which all sorts of change is happening all the time, and the only way to understand what climate change will bring is to tell stories about how it manifests in people's lives.
I think we can compete with high-wage countries, and I believe we should. New jobs and clean energy, not only to fight climate change, which is a serious problem, but to create new opportunities and new businesses.
If everybody on the planet today had the same standard of living as the average European or American, we would need three new planets. But we don't even have one new planet. We have this one, and with the way we're polluting it, the shrinking water resources, the climate change, the experimentation with plants... the outlook is grim.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: