Sentences with phrase «better than mitigation»

They hide under rocks and make loud chirping noises that seem to come from every direction — to confuse predators (eagles and the like) and presumably also to rub in the fact that adaptation is better than mitigation.

Not exact matches

We also want to make clear that climate mitigation is better for U.S. irrigated agriculture than not doing anything.»

But Irwin Shapiro, an astrophysicist at the Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass., who chaired the 2010 Committee to Review Near - Earth - Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies for the U.S. National Research Council, says that ground - based observatories such as the planned Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) on Cerro Pachón in Chile are better value for money than space telescopes, because they last longer and are less expensive.

Rather than fences, he would prefer to see the establishment of buffer zones to separate humans and lions, as well as more of the kinds of conflict mitigation initiatives that Panthera has helped establish to reduce the killing of lions.

This year's results highlighted the importance of driver - assist technologies to consumers, as vehicles with safety features such as blind spot monitoring and collision mitigation performed notably better in the study than vehicles that did not have them.

The new 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee includes even more safety and security features — more than 60, including Front Park Assist, Forward Collision Warning with Crash Mitigation, Adaptive Cruise Control, and Selec - Speed Control — as well as an array of advanced user - friendly technology features for North America such as Uconnect 8.4 - inch touchscreen radio with integrated climate and infotainment controls, a 7 - inch customer configurable multiview display cluster, Uconnect Access Via Mobile and cloud - based voice texting.

«ATA strongly believes that preventing rear - end crashes is a far better strategic goal than mitigating them and strongly recommends that all vehicles (light and heavy) be equipped with forward collision warning and mitigation braking technology,» the group said in comments to NHTSA on a proposal to strengthen truck underride guards.

The thinking behind offering mortgage write - downs make sense when so many homes are worth less than the mortgage amounts against them, but the complex nature of the secondary mortgage market and its rules can sink well - meaning loss mitigation efforts.

A well - run convertible bond strategy could be expected to achieve lower positive returns than equities, but with some downside mitigation.

Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate Apr 30 Our mitigation community, from academics to NGOs, are now little more than well - meaning angels inventing elaborate new dances to perform on the head of a pin.

There are also much, much better ways to justify climate mitigation policies than with hurricanes (e.g., Rayner 2004).»

I don't like the concept either, but it is far better than them not existing at all — because at least they have the chance of someday returning to their ecological roles (i.e., if some of the disease mitigation efforts discussed by Woodhams et al can work).

Emphasis should be placed on climate change adaptation, rather than mitigation as advocated by Mr. Savory, to support the well - being of millions of human inhabitants.

The trouble is that the science doesn't actually say that mitigation is a better strategy than adaptation, let alone whether an 80 % reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 is better than a 60 % reduction.

It is also an area where mitigation is not the only potentially useful strategy, because it should be possible to create new strains of important food crops better suited to a changed climate than current varieties.

Another study, in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2012, concluded that «communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society» rather than «on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.»

One of the most important facts you deny is that, without evidence that GHG emissions will do more harm than good there is no justification for mitigation policies.

I don't assume that there are better things to spend money on than aggressive mitigation; I prove it in my original post.

Given the right approach, remediation could well be cheaper and simpler than mitigation, could certainly wait for appropriate technology to mature, and also has the benefit that it addresses the risk that fossil emissions aren't the reason, or at least the only reason, for the rise in pCO2.

So even if it turned out that climate mitigation was unnecessary, we would still be in a better place as a global society by making the coming switch sooner rather than later.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

If you think you have a better way to quantify and present the global net - benefits of GHG mitigation policies than the globally accepted standard, please show the equivalent chart in units of measure you deem appropriate, provide links to the basis for it, method, inputs, assumptions, and all else needed to be able to understand it and reproduce it (as I di for the above chart: https://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/.

And we are likely to do much better than the mid-range no mitigation scenario used by Rowlands et al..

And yet these 300,000 deaths are used as the basis for an argument for the mitigation of climate change rather than as a good reason for industrialisation and economic development.

While remediation might have to work much harder to push the system back over such tipping points, it would have a much better chance of working than mitigation.

For those who are determined to maintain a contrarian position on AGW, there are other much better grounds on which to base that position (maybe climate sensitivity is low, or maybe the impacts of GW will be on balance positive, or maybe the impacts will be negative but the costs of mitigation would be higher than the benefits).

On the other hand, the proposed mitigation policies will increase the probability of worse well - being, than would otherwise be the case, for a large proportion of the global population.

Utilizing this framework, we find that mitigation scores better than all climate engineering options.

There are also much, much better ways to justify climate mitigation policies than with hurricanes....»

There is at least some chance, if not a good chance, that climate will get colder not warmer and then mitigation costs have only gone to make adaptation cost even higher becaue mitigation went the wrong way i.e. worse than useless.

By «not acting» I presume you are referring to «not rushing today to implement mitigation actions whose consequences we can not really predict» rather than «stopping all research aimed at better understanding the many uncertainties related to our planet's climate».

* hope that the scientists forecasting low temperature rise are correct, * start mitigation programs (much of which are necessary anyway, such as preparation of the US East coast for rising sea levels (necessary anyway to prepare for normal hurricane impacts) * crash fund climate research — rather than the underfunded, uncoordinated work done today — to better predict and prepare, * crash fund energy research, * push use of alternatives (I don't expect much from this), * take steps to crash the global economy — the alarmists recommendation, which I reject.

Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, «just in case», can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them.

Therefore, knowledge on the Time of Emergence (ToE), or the years that the human contributions to climate change will become more important than natural variability in causing heat waves, is crucial for better mitigation and adaptation efforts.

* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth's surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office * Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation * Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data * After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST * New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment's first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer - reviewed paper on the topic * We will all be left with a slightly - warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.

Evaluating environmental risks and mitigations better and at a more in - depth level than the next person will often lead to commercial advantage.

Additionally, even if it were accepted that sex constitutes medical care, such expenses would be more for petitioner's general well - being rather than cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of a specific disease or condition.

«There may well be merit in the appellant's argument that he trial judge took a subjective approach in assessing «work atmosphere, stigma and loss of dignity» for the purposes of mitigation, rather than the required objective approach.