Sentences with phrase «about damage mitigation»

But doesn't this violate the provision about damage mitigation?

Not exact matches

Many people are writing about the need to limit new development in flood plains after the 2013 flood but that speaks only to the damage mitigation side.

«[These] ethical, legal, and historical considerations may further inform discussions about carbon producer responsibilities to contribute to limiting climate change through investment in mitigation, support for adaptation, and compensation for climate damages,» they conclude.

If we decide that we should worry about those effects then it is as important to decide whether New York should fund mitigation efforts like a carbon price or adaptation efforts that avoid climate damages to foreign countries to reduce the chance that these impacts will radiate benefits back to New York.

So no, uncertainty is no one's friend, whether we talk about damages from climate change or the costs of mitigation.

It follows that to avert $ 5 trillion in damages, it would be economically advisable to expend in excess of $ 1 trillion now on climate mitigation even if we are uncertain about which discount rate to apply.

The main disagreement is about the amount of impact, the net economic cost / benefit, the probabilities and, especially, the consequences of the proposed mitigation policies versus the climate damages that would be avoided by the proposed polices.

Justice Huscroft noted there was no evidence about the future availability of teaching positions, which was particularly significant given his finding of mitigation of damages.

While I've raised my own questions about the «trust» approach in the past (as in my commentary on Bernier v. Nygard: http://lawyerbuchanan.blogspot.ca/2013/07/dismissed-employee-wins-summary.html), the reasoning in this case seems to be riddled with the same conflation of damages and mitigation concepts that I argued was problematic in the Garcia case, among others.