In contrast, the recent report from Alberta's Climate Leadership Panel on
emissions mitigation mentions CCS just three times.
Not exact matches
On the other side, while there will undoubtedly be high costs to any serious attempt at
mitigation, this would also require something like a global agreement (covering at least the rich world, India and China, and probably other states with large and currently poor populations) which would inevitably have to bring in issues other than greenhouse gas
emissions — such as those you
mention — if only because these states will say, reasonably enough, that they can not bring their populations on board without serious help in those other areas.
But when you look at text sections on the most important issues —
mitigation of greenhouse - gas
emissions, financial aid for vulnerable countries and any
mention of aspects of the deal that might be legally binding — you encounter not only brackets but, surreally, -LSB-[brackets] within brackets].
When asked about climate change impacts, Americans do not
mention health impacts, 290 and when asked about health impacts specifically, most believe it will affect people in a different time or place.291 But diverse groups of Americans find information on health impacts to be helpful once received, particularly information about the health benefits of
mitigation (reducing carbon
emissions) and adaptation.292
Key features of the Strong 2ºC pathway include the aggressive front - loading of
mitigation, the above -
mentioned floor on non-CO2 gases, and the absence of negative
emissions of any kind.
Mitigation scenarios (also known as climate intervention or climate policy scenarios) are defined in the TAR (Morita et al., 2001), as scenarios that «(1) include explicit policies and / or measures, the primary goal of which is to reduce GHG
emissions (e.g., carbon taxes) and / or (2)
mention no climate policies and / or measures, but assume temporal changes in GHG
emission sources or drivers required to achieve particular climate targets (e.g., GHG
emission levels, GHG concentration levels, radiative forcing levels, temperature increase or sea level rise limits).»
Quirke: In one of your posts, you
mentioned that your best estimate for warming under a business as usual scenario — which I guess is unsuccessful
mitigation and somewhere between the IPCC's RCP 6.5 and 8.5
emissions scenarios — is 3 °C by 2100.