Sentences with phrase «for adaptation costs»

Yet questions of distributive justice about which nations should bear the major responsibility for most GHG reductions at the international level have and continue to block agreement in international climate negotiations, as well as questions about which countries should be financially responsible for adaptation costs and damages in poor countries that are most vulnerable to climate change's harshest climate impacts and who have done little to cause the problem.

If the argument is that these entities (companies, states, etc.) are in effect blameless as it's the consumers who are to blame, then the follow - up is that the consumers should pay for the adaptation costs.

Not exact matches

I'm enthusiastic at the prospect of seeing New York join the 37 states that already provide access for early voters, especially now that the proposed legislation offers a minimal cost adaptation for low population counties like ours.

«In the light of limited funds for adaptation it is an asset to provide comparable cost assessments.

A study of Alaska, for example, found that adaptation of the state's infrastructure — roads, airports, water systems, public buildings and telecommunications — would cost 13 percent less by 2030 than if the state did maintenance on a case - by - case basis.

Hallegatte estimates that the necessary adaptations would cost each at - risk city an initial $ 3 billion, plus 2 percent of the initial cost each year for maintenance and operation, putting the total yearly cost for the 136 - city sample in the study at about $ 50 billion — a quarter of NASA's space shuttle program.

So the group argues for across - the - board adaptation, arguing that damage along the coast and in low - lying areas could cost California anywhere from $ 7 billion to $ 46 billion to adjust.

In addition to supporting adaptation efforts through its pipeline of infrastructure projects (which will average $ 1.1 billion per annum over the next three years), the Bank is providing (in countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Djibouti, and Yemen) knowledge and technical expertise for better analyzing likely impacts of climate change, and for designing least - cost adaptation interventions to minimize such impacts.

And of course there is the price factor in it as well in support of this argument as perhaps it makes better sense to go for a compact adaptation of an e-reader that costs a few hundred dollars less rather than to buy the Kindle DX with a bigger 9.7 - inch sized screen that will set one back by about $ 500.

A 50 % reduction of the initial dose is possible in the majority of the dogs (after stabilization is achieved)(Simpson et al 1994)(This adaptation of the dose is important, because the cost of pancreatic enzymes is an obstacle to treatment for many owners, who prefer to euthanize their dogs.

The team also found that those species adapted to live inside the CO2 vent showed slightly higher metabolic rates and were much smaller in size — up to 80 % smaller — indicating that adaptation came at a cost of energy for growth.

But a quick summary of some of my thoughts: I think a case can be made for some combination of equal per - capita payback and tax reduction, but the rationale for this must be that this somehow compensates for the costs of global warming or adaptation to that; as much of this occurs in the future (with different people), this is private sector economic investment to boost the economy now so that it may make itself more robust in the future -LRB-?).

There is an urgent need to scale up financial flows, particularly financial support to developing countries; to create positive incentives for actions; to finance the incremental costs of cleaner and low - carbon technologies; to make more efficient use of funds directed toward climate change; to realize the full potential of appropriate market mechanisms that can provide pricing signals and economic incentives to the private sector; to promote public sector investment; to create enabling environments that promote private investment that is commercially viable; to develop innovative approaches; and to lower costs by creating appropriate incentives for and reducing and eliminating obstacles to technology transfer relevant to both mitigation and adaptation.

As for 4) «that adaptation as needed is massively more cost - effective than any attempted mitigation» — what an unimaginative and pessimistic bunch of people these are.

You seem to have steered clear of the questions in which science intersects with policy (global warming is happening but it's not calamitous; the costs estimated for cutting emissions exceed the overinflated costs of adaptation, etc...).

Their concerns were underlined by the publication of a UN Environment Programme report suggesting that adaptation costs for developing countries «could climb as high as $ 150 billion [$ 122 billion] by 2025 - 2030 and $ 250 - 500 billion per year by 2050» — which is double or treble previous estimates.

Estimates suggest that the costs for climate adaptation and loss and damage alone in developing countries already exceed $ 100 billion.

The local governments want the industries to pay for damage and adaptation costs resulting from climate change, including sea - level rise and more extreme storms.

This guidance document explores the costs of meeting adaptation needs and assesses the funding that is available for meeting those needs.

The report suggests that although international public funding for adaptation has increased in recent years, the previous assessments of the costs of adaptation have involved significant underestimates.

The report estimates the cost of climate adaptation measures for Pacific Island countries.

To support an informed assessment of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, model results for regional climate simulations must be robust at reasonable computational cost.

Improved understanding and capacity for addressing the costs and benefits of adaptation is an important pillar in implementing enhanced action on adaptation at all levels.

The scope of this chapter, with a focus on food crops, pastures and livestock, industrial crops and biofuels, forestry (commercial forests), aquaculture and fisheries, and small - holder and subsistence agriculturalists and artisanal fishers, is to: examine current climate sensitivities / vulnerabilities; consider future trends in climate, global and regional food security, forestry and fisheries production; review key future impacts of climate change in food crops pasture and livestock production, industrial crops and biofuels, forestry, fisheries, and small - holder and subsistence agriculture; assess the effectiveness of adaptation in offsetting damages and identify adaptation options, including planned adaptation to climate change; examine the social and economic costs of climate change in those sectors; and, explore the implications of responding to climate change for sustainable development.

This technical document analyses the general methodological issues for estimating the costs and benefits of adaptation options, reviews new studies on the economics of adaptation in light of these methodological issues, and discusses their strengths and weaknesses.

Paul mind if I flip your question and ask you for evidence that adaptation is more beneficial and cost effective than mitigation?

Roger also feels that the use of RCMs for the development of adaptation strategies is cost - inefficient.

The risk in developing countries is mis - allocation of resources to high cost infrastructure for adaptation to climate change that may never happen.

The situation is indeed clear; we can logically conclude from geology, physics, climate science, ecology, and economics that a few hundred more ppm of CO2 would most likely be net beneficial globally and even for those areas or circumstances in which global warming would not be beneficial it would be considerably more feasible and cost effective to implement local adaptations than attempt global mitigation which comes with no money - back guarantees should the entire (100 %) world not play ball.

The tax is a mitigation, and the monies could be used for adaptation or further mitigation, depending on cost effectiveness.

This will require urgent and *** unprecedented levels of support — the UNEP Adaptation Gap Report indicates that the global cost of adaptation could be as much as *** $ 200 or $ 300 billion per year by 2050 — but it is right that the rich countries responsible for the problem help to protect the culture, heritage and identity of the most vulnerable communities and countries... Q: What should EU governments be doingAdaptation Gap Report indicates that the global cost of adaptation could be as much as *** $ 200 or $ 300 billion per year by 2050 — but it is right that the rich countries responsible for the problem help to protect the culture, heritage and identity of the most vulnerable communities and countries... Q: What should EU governments be doingadaptation could be as much as *** $ 200 or $ 300 billion per year by 2050 — but it is right that the rich countries responsible for the problem help to protect the culture, heritage and identity of the most vulnerable communities and countries... Q: What should EU governments be doing about it?

Those nations who have consistently emitted ghgs above their fair share of safe global ghg emissions are responsible for the reasonable adaptation costs and damages of poor nations and people who have not caused climate change.These responsibilities are required both by basic ethics and justice and international law.

I challenge the premise — although we may have adapted to life in Minnesota and places further north, with expensive heating oil, heavy clothing and a large transportation system for fresh foods, removing those adaptations (lowering our survival costs) would be of incredible benefit.

The enormity of growing costs for needed adaptation, loses, and damages in poor developing countries.

Just happened to go to a UW lecture by Nives Dolsak an energy researcher at the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs yesterday on Breaking the Adaptation Taboo: How Information on the Costs of Adapting to Climate Change Influences Support for Mitigation, where I - 732 came up as an example of putting a price on climate change.

The UN did not tot up cost estimates but noted individual countries set out needs of between US$ 100 million and $ 200 billion for adaptation alone.

South Africa likely will use the analysis in Paris to make a case for a global adaptation goal based on quantification of adaptation costs.

«Without successful adaptation, and given the persistent rise in demand for maize and wheat, the sizable yield setback from climate change is likely incurring large economic and health costs,» the report states.

Developed countries have agreed to bear the adaptation costs of developing countries to human induced climate change and that these funds should represent «new and additional resources» a and the Cancun Agreement and subsequent discussions suggests that for adaptation these funds could amount to tens of billions USD per year.

For example, South Africa estimates that over 2020 - 2050, adaptation costs under a low mitigation scenario would range from $ 200 million to $ 53.1 billion; in a high mitigation scenario, costs would range from $ 200 million to $ 50 billion.

The incremental costs reflect the cost of capital of the incremental investment and the change of operating and maintenance costs for a mitigation or adaptation project in comparison to a reference project.

Fourth, international cooperation allows for linkages across policies at different scale, notably through harmonizing national and regional policies, as well as linkages across issues, and through enhanced cooperation may reduce mitigation costs, create opportunities for sharing the benefits of adaptation, increase credibility of price signals, and expand market size and liquidity.

On the historical evidence, positives from warming will vastly outweigh the costs of adaptation, especially since, except in asteroid - strike - level likelihood, there will be time and more than time for thorough and more than adequate adaptation.

WGII — Assess the impact good and bad of CO2 climate change including costs and options for adaptation

A research initiative that mapped decisions by town managers in Maine to sources of climate information, engineering design, mandated requirements, and calendars identified the complex, multi-jurisdictional challenges of widespread adaptation for even such seemingly simple actions as using larger culverts to carry water from major storms.116 To help towns adapt culverts to expected climate change over their lifetimes, the Sustainability Solutions Initiative is creating decision tools to map culvert locations, schedule maintenance, estimate needed culvert size, and analyze replacement needs and costs.

Those nations, sub-national governments, organizations, businesses, and individuals that are emitting greenhouse gases above their fair share of safe global emissions have obligations, duties, and responsibilities for the costs of adaptation or damages to those who are harmed or will be harmed by climate change.

The second problem with their argument is that while carbon tax revenues could, in theory, be used to pay for present and future adaptation costs, few on the right are at all interested in so using that revenue, including Neeley and Murray.

IIED: Accurate cost benefit analysis of climate change adaptation actions is not only critical in designing effective local - level adaptation strategies, but also for generating information that feeds into national and global climate policy agreements.

Carbon pricing is a small addition to the cost to pay for its later damage and the costs of adaptation and mitigation too.

With the late - summer ice edge located farther north than it used to be, storms produce larger waves and more coastal erosion.5 An additional contributing factor is that coastal bluffs that were «cemented» by ice - rich permafrost are beginning to thaw in response to warmer air and ocean waters, and are therefore more vulnerable to erosion.22 Standard defensive adaptation strategies to protect coastal communities from erosion, such as use of rock walls, sandbags, and riprap, have been largely unsuccessful.23 Several coastal communities are seeking to relocate to escape erosion that threatens infrastructure and services but, because of high costs and policy constraints on use of federal funds for community relocation, only one Alaskan village has begun to relocate (see also Ch.