Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(4)
Exact(28)
In 1992 the nations of the world entered a binding agreement to stop "dangerous anthropogenic interference" with the earth's atmosphere.
e360: You've said that the goal of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system is gone.
The framework pledges to stabilize greenhouse-gas concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".
The treaty committed its parties to the important, if awkwardly worded goal of preventing "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".
Its aim was "to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".
Our governments collude by encouraging excess emissions, contrary to their UN commitment to stabilise "greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".
Similar(32)
There's no precise term for the level of CO2 that will assure a climate disaster; the best that scientists and policymakers have been able to come up with is the phrase "dangerous anthropogenic interference," or D.A.I.
He did this – along with other world leaders – because the scientific community had already made clear that anthropogenic interference in the climate system represented a serious threat to our future health, wellbeing and prosperity.
For the world to avoid "dangerous anthropogenic interference," the United States is, finally, going to have to live up to the commitments it made under the Framework Convention.
The Kyoto Protocol, too, was clearly inadequate to the task of preventing "dangerous anthropogenic interference," and a successor treaty was supposed to be negotiated in Copenhagen in the fall of 2009.
We specifically addressed changes in plant growth and epiphyte composition on leaves and rhizomes caused by this anthropogenic interference.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com