Sentences with phrase «cost of climate change does»

Not exact matches

«At some point, the cost of capture intersects with the cost of carbon, and all of a sudden you don't have to subsidize industry to do it,» explains Rob Savage, director of Alberta Environment's Climate Change Secretariat.

I'd like to think we did it because we didn't want to press our luck anymore, because repairs cost more than the Blue Book said you were worth, because you didn't have anti-lock brakes or passenger - side airbags, because we really couldn't have you breaking down on a late - night drive home from the airport or on a busy interstate, because of fuel economy and our deepening concern over climate change.

The alternative is a car - dependent, exurban sprawl disfiguring our towns and villages, worsening climate change, leeching cities into wilderness, and doing nothing to bring down the cost of housing.

But these do not affect the key point: the effects of climate change, for example, will cause massive adjustment costs so higher GDP may well not feed through to higher living standards.

As Chris Huhne has argued in Chapter 12, on climate change, Liberal Democrats do not argue that people should be prevented from flying or driving their cars, but rather that the true environmental costs of their actions should be reflected in the price that they pay when they fly or drive.

European forest managers can have their cake and eat it, because according to a new study maximizing timber production in a forest does not necessarily have to come at a cost of reduced species diversity or the capacity to regulate climate change by the same forest.

Water shortages are being felt around the world yet impacts vary in different places, said Gleick, adding that the human, economic, and environmental costs of doing nothing, especially in the face of climate change and environmental security threats, are high and require «new thinking.»

At the same time, the arrangement is designed to benefit the American companies, which can do their bit to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, as required by the Climate Change Convention, at one - third of the cost of making the same cuts in the US.

They did so by adding the extra emissions to an existing model used in the UK government's 2006 Stern Review, designed to assess the economic cost of coping with climate change between now and 2200.

It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the scientific perspective because what we are finding right now with issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks like this because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.

«I do think there's an opportunity, if the president chooses to take it, to show leadership and get attention on the cost that climate change is likely to cause,» says Kevin Kennedy, who heads the US climate initiative of the World Resources Institute in Washington DC.

The climate models aren't really good enough in their representation of present - day circulation to give you much confidence in the specifics of their predictions [so that you could use them to do a cost - benefit analysis for example], but the risk of widespread change is still there.

The cost of averting climate change is often argued as a reason to do nothing.

This is done either through funding offers like Salix Finance, a not - for - profit company funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Welsh and Scottish Governments to remove the barrier of significant upfront capital cost to investing in energy efficient technologies.

Carol M. Browner, the new White House coordinator for climate and energy, is a seasoned environmental regulator and campaigner who has focused on cap - and - trade legislation, which would steadily raise the cost of unfettered fossil - fuel use, and rule - making as driving the necessary change (as they did with the 20th - century basket of air pollutants).

This really is the problem: Mr. IAT is once again rebunking the denialist meme that AGW can't be a globally urgent problem if climate scientists don't voluntarily internalize the marginal climate - change cost of their private fossil carbon emissions.

Arguably, what the funders of organized climate change denial have done might in the long run cost even more lives.

I agree that climate change ranks low (22nd out of 22 potential priority areas in a recent Gallup Poll, as I recall) among the American public, particularly when people are confronted by the reality that doing something meaningful will entail costs.

The high - income countries should help to finance the costs of climate - change mitigation in low - income countries as the high - income countries have promised to do;

However, I am curious whether you will do the same with respect to the diminished nutritional value of these crops, the increased global prevailence and severity of droughts, diminished agricultural output in Indonesia, etc, or, as is suggested by your response, do you intend to «accentuate the positive» with regard to climate change by omitting the costs?

For a stark example of the costs attending business as usual, read the following «Your Dot» contribution from Elizabeth Hadly, a Stanford University biologist who's been doing field work in Nepal's Himalayan highlands focused on the impact of climate change on small mammals.

The destruction of mountains, streams, rivers and groundwater, the destruction of land laid waste by strip - mining, the loss of wildlife in these areas, the human illnesses and premature deaths that result from these practices especially in Appalachia, the CO2 emissions and resulting climate change along with the havoc this causes — all of these are externalities that do not enter into the price companies pay to mine the stuff or the costs we pay to turn on the a.c.

Also, things are the way they are — setting aside the politics (for recieving nations) and psychological costs (for those moving), it would make sense to some extent for people to move toward places set up for efficient wealth generation rather than to spread the wealth among the people whereever they are, so it wouldn't make sense to try to wipe the slate clean of the advantages gained from history let along geography, although the later does bring up the issue of climate change refugees, and some wealth generating capacity is spread out (land), and of course some clean energy resources are rather abundant in the developing world or parts thereof, and energy needs differ geographically even for the same lifestyle — see above... this whole paragraph should reference itself....

I hope we don't end - up regretting it too badly but by convincing ourselves that science must not be self - falsifiable, as is the case with the IPCC's position regarding scientific research into the causes of climate change, I'm afraid we are destined to do a lot of wheel spinning at great costs before we really make much headway in a truly conscious approach to our world's sustaining systems.

Even as potentially catastrophic as climate change might be, if people don't sense climate change as a direct personal threat, reason alone won't convince them that the costs of action are worth it.

As I said before why do we have to wait for the climate change induced natural disaster that could happen that will make the bean counters put the climate before the cost instead of the other way round.

I don't happen to agree with your conclusions, but the purpose of my comment was not to give my perspective on the cost / benefit calculation for climate change mitigation.

So do we continue to push climate change stuff if we discover that the cost is more than we have while the cost of doing nothing is something we can easily afford?

«The situation the company finds itself in now is a significant amount of uncertainty about what climate change regulation might do to the cost of coal plants,» Eskelsen said Monday.

Cost benefit like that done by the Reagan administration does not work all that well when the cost distributions of climate change are that fuCost benefit like that done by the Reagan administration does not work all that well when the cost distributions of climate change are that fucost distributions of climate change are that fuzzy.

-- but ultimately, companies don't think twice about passing the costs of climate change on to you, or if you become too much of a risk, dropping you altogether.

Yet a leading U.S. Senate advocate of legislative action on climate seems to be starting off like a sprinter, perhaps because his legislation is pegged to estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon that don't account for the possibility that climate change will turn out to be catastrophically costly.

How do we discount the long - term costs and benefits of climate change?

Policymakers must do cost / benefit analysis, taking into account tradeoffs, such as balancing risks from climate change against those from poverty, and as Hans von Storch points out, «judgments of the value of costs versus benefits is [sic] a highly subjective, value - laden calculation.»

Their cost estimates don't consider the benefits of slower climate change, such as improved health, and the reduction in impacts of warming.

A new report from the American Security Project examines the costs of doing nothing about climate change, broken down into regional impacts across the US.

The problem for Mr. Romm is that most economic analyses of climate change show that benefits don't exceed costs for aggressive mitigation (see Manzi's comments, for instance).

We can do that by internalizing the known costs of global warming and climate change and sea level rise that are not currently reflected in the price of the products that are causing them.

Premier Wen Jiabao pledged China's support for greener development and addressing climate change but drew the line at binding China to hard carbon emissions caps. Will this come at the expense of low - carbon innovation? Apparently, analysis by Environmental Economics blog shows that countries which adopted the Kyoto Protocol experienced more greentech innovation (measured by patent filings) that countries that did not. But Dr. David Tyfield (in a previous interview with GLF) would probably have you know that China's low cost, low tech innovation can provide some interesting low carbon solutions.

Weitzman pointed out that, when we consider the full range of possible outcomes from climate change, the outlying possibilities on the high - cost side of the range of possible outcomes do not go quickly to zero, which implies far greater risks — and a far greater likelihood of damages — than conventional analyses would suggest.

Some economic tools frequently used to evaluate public policy on climate change such as cost - benefit analysis that don't acknowledge responsibility for allocating the burdens for reducing the threat of climate change on the basis of distributive justice are ethically problematic.

The 2014 paper's author, Isabel Galiana, herself said that the «the paper does not explicitly undertake a benefit / cost analysis of keeping climate change to two degrees,» and also noted that if certain «tipping points» were passed, then climate - change induced damage could also increase.

«Even if we agreed on a particular computer simulation of the monetary damages accruing from climate change over the next few centuries, the calculation of the «social cost of carbon» would vary widely, depending on our choice of parameters that have nothing to do with climate science,» he said.

Usual investment criteria may not deliver the super low - cost, clean, renewable energy soon enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change,» said Dr. Larry Brilliant, Executive Director of Google.org, Google's philanthropic arm, «Google.org's hope is that by funding research on promising technologies, investing in promising new companies, and doing a lot of R&D ourselves, we may help spark a green electricity revolution that will deliver breakthrough technologies priced lower than coal.»

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

But these direct cost related factors don't even begin to count in the terrible external costs of fossil fuels ranging from ramping damages due to climate change and direct health impacts by adding toxic particles to the air and water.

However, if climate change is understood as essentially a moral and ethical problem it will eventually transform how climate change is debated because the successful framing by the opponents of climate change policies that have limited recent debate to these three arguments, namely cost, scientific uncertainty, and unfairness of reducing ghg emissions until China does so can be shown to be deeply ethically and morally problematic.

Common to these arguments is that they have successfully framed the climate change debate so that opponents and proponents of climate policies debate facts about costs, scientific uncertainty, or economic harms to nations that act while other large emitters don't act rather the moral problems with these arguments.

The analyses evaluate the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but do not measure the resulting payoff — the benefits of averting dangerous climate change.

These questions are organized according to the most frequent arguments made against climate change policies which are claims that climate change policies: (a) will impose unacceptable costs on a national economy or specific industries or prevent nations from pursuing other national priorities, (b) should not be adopted because of scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts, or (c) are both unfair and ineffective as long as high emitting nations such as China or India do not adopt meaningful ghg emissions reduction policies.