Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about, but we haven't figured out how to engage the audience in that story in a meaningful way. When we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience's part.
Ours is a world which feels so unsettled and dangerous in large ways, whether it's terrorism or global financial meltdown or climate change - huge things that affect us deeply, and yet things about which we can do, individually, very little.
Deliberately modifying the earth's atmosphere would be a desperate gamble with significant risks. Yet the more likely climate change is to cause devastation, the more attractive even the most perilous attempts to mitigate those changes will become.
Listen, I think we all believe that we need to take aggressive steps to mitigate the effects of climate change.
There is a need for greater multilateral cooperation to resolve trade conflicts, to address climate change and risks from cybersecurity, and to improve the effectiveness of international taxation.
Climate change, migration... they transcend national borders and require an international response.
The debate on climate change has been tainted by its excessive concern with individual and national interests, short-termism, and lack of solidarity in face of global threats.
You can't solve climate change by everybody individually buying a more efficient car and throwing out less stuff. You have to make national changes through national policy.
Just as we demand that our governments address risks associated with terrorism or epidemics, we should put concerted pressure on them to act now to preserve our natural environment and curb climate change.
You know they've come to this point where they want to blame climate change for quite literally everything now, and sorry, but the Green New Deal is not going to solve that.
The U.S. news media have a critical role to play in educating the public about climate change.
There is no question that climate change is happening; the only arguable point is what part humans are playing in it.
The best way to tell people about climate change is through non-fiction. There's a vast literature of outstanding writing on the subject.
Tragically, no industry has done more to block crucial action to address climate change than the oil industry.
On climate change, we have only a handful of years to make massive changes, according to the scientists. The politicians have to act, and only the people can make them, because Royal Dutch Shell's not going to do it.
The problem with climate change is that it's quite complicated for the ordinary person to understand.
Climate change and ozone depletion are two global issues that are different but have many connections. In the ozone depletion case, we managed to work with decision makers effectively so that an international agreement called the Montreal Protocol was achieved that essentially solved the ozone depletion problem.
The 'Wall Street Journal' is quite irate that I rank them with industry front groups and cranks denying climate change. But they have a record whenever industrial pollutants are involved. Look at the 'Journal''s commentary on acid rain, on the ozone layer, and on climate change.
The Paris pact was correctly described by its opponents - greens and anti-greens alike - as toothless. But it was also the first time that nations around the world had officially agreed that climate change was a problem and that concrete steps should be taken to avoid its worst effects.
I'm not against entertainment: if someone wants to read nonsense-mongers, let them, but I resent the appearance of parity between two articles on an issue as serious as climate change when one article is actually gibberish masked in pseudoscience and the other is well informed and accurate.
