Sentences with phrase «human cost of climate change»

Science Daily: A new book, «Overheated: The Human Cost of Climate Change,» predicts a grim future for billions of people in this century.

Superstorm Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan hit a year and hemispheres apart — with Sandy battering cities up and down the eastern US in 2012 and Haiyan devastating the Philippines in 2013 — but together they made the real human cost of climate change painfully apparent to anyone with eyeballs.

Not exact matches

Can anybody fathom the magnitude and depth of harm galamsey has cost the Republic of Ghana in terms of human resource abuses, land degradation, evil consequences on farming, water pollution and evil climate change (s).

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.»

Today, with deforestation accounting for a substantial portion of human - induced carbon emissions, the researchers describe the payment program they studied as «a cost - effective way to avert deforestation in developing countries — and hence a powerful tool to mitigate climate change.»

In the future, irrigated agriculture will face increased water costs driven by competing needs of an increasing human population and probably drier conditions under a changing climate.

From the romanticism of some of the earliest work exhibited such as George Morland and Walter Langley depicting the human cost of shipwrecks and their aftermath to the effects of climate change upon the sea, coastal erosion and rising sea levels, that is portrayed in work by artists such as Jethro Brice, Simon Read and Michael Porter.

In addition to recognizing the human development cost of climate change, tools like Maplecroft's climate change impact map must be used to motivate change.

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.

that «Human combustion of fossil fuels is significantly causing that climate change» is also true, then many, perhaps most, people will accept that there is a need to «reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build out clean energy» even if it will «cost consumers money, decrease energy security and destroy jobs».

Of course, it is a tremendously complex calculation - lumping all the complexity of an economic cost and benefits calculation on top of the complexity of the climate - but to me this information is essential to work out priorities between competing policies, both among climate change policies and between CC and other sources of human happinesOf course, it is a tremendously complex calculation - lumping all the complexity of an economic cost and benefits calculation on top of the complexity of the climate - but to me this information is essential to work out priorities between competing policies, both among climate change policies and between CC and other sources of human happinesof an economic cost and benefits calculation on top of the complexity of the climate - but to me this information is essential to work out priorities between competing policies, both among climate change policies and between CC and other sources of human happinesof the complexity of the climate - but to me this information is essential to work out priorities between competing policies, both among climate change policies and between CC and other sources of human happinesof the climate - but to me this information is essential to work out priorities between competing policies, both among climate change policies and between CC and other sources of human happinesof human happiness.

Or you can read: «Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation -LSB-...] The results of the analysis suggest that agriculture and human well - being will be negatively affected by climate changeClimate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation -LSB-...] The results of the analysis suggest that agriculture and human well - being will be negatively affected by climate change&Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation -LSB-...] The results of the analysis suggest that agriculture and human well - being will be negatively affected by climate changeclimate change&change»

Gernot Wagner, Ph.D., works closely with EDF's Office of the Chief Economist, participating in projects relating to climate damages and tipping points, the social cost of carbon, empirical modeling of climate change and human activity, and others.

A report on the impacts of climate change on human health published by the European Commission Joint Research Council also shows that coastal flooding and high sea - level rise scenarios could have significant negative effects on mental health, in addition to high economic costs.

His March 28 executive order «promoting energy independence and economic growth» rescinded the Obama administration's calculation of the «social cost of carbon» — a metric that had been central to the process of crafting and justifying government rules addressing human - driven climate change.

• The effects of management strategies on climate, ecosystem services, and the resilience of ecosystems to climate change; field experiments and models designed to learn about coupled human - and environmental systems and to test different management interventions • The valuation of ecosystem services, including the economic or other costs associated with impacts of climate and other environmental changes • Adaptive approaches and institutional and governance mechanisms for addressing the regulatory aspects of special status species management

Examples; CO2 levels in the atmosphere correlate directly with human population (lots of breathing) and thus population control can avoid climate change (hard to disprove) Melting of the Artic ice sheet is good as shipping route will become shorter and transportation costs much less.

Favorable energy economics are just one of solar's many benefits — including less water use, lack of requirement for a centralized grid in undeveloped regions, low cost, zero air pollution, and in providing a mitigation for the rising problem of global climate change (which is primarily driven by human fossil fuel burning).

In a sharp change from its cautious approach in the past, the National Academy of Sciences on Wednesday called for taxes on carbon emissions, a cap - and - trade program for such emissions or some other strong action to curb runaway global warming.Such actions, which would increase the cost of using coal and petroleum — at least in the immediate future — are necessary because «climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming... concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing, and there are very clear fingerprints that link [those effects] to humans,» said Pamela A. Matson of Stanford University, who chaired one of five panels organized by the academy at the request of Congress to look at the science of climate change and how the nation should respond.

The human cost is massive: an estimated 400,000 people already die each year due to hunger and diseases related to climate change, especially in developing countries, and the number of deaths increase as our carbon emissions increase.

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.

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

The paper calls for «human dignity» to serve as a necessary guiding principle of climate policy and outlines three central objectives consistent with this guiding principle: (1) ensuring energy access for all, (2) developing clean and scalable energy technologies that are ultimately cost competitive with fossil fuels absent subsidy, and (3) building resilience to climate change.

Petroleum and coal companies are allowed to sell their products which, when consumed, cause untold trillions of dollars in costs in human health and environmental damage, and governments pay those costs in the form of medical benefits, and eventually measures to deal with the effects of global climate change.

The people least responsible for climate change will pay the biggest price, both in terms of economic costs and human costs.

If human rights are violated by climate change, costs to those causing climate change entailed by policies to reduce the threat of climate change are not relevant for policy.

Key uncertainties involve: 1) the degree to which increases in evapotranspiration versus permafrost thaw are leading to drier landscapes; 2) the degree to which it is these drier landscapes associated with permafrost thaw, versus more severe fire weather associated with climate change, that is leading to more wildfire; 3) the degree to which the costs of the maintenance of infrastructure are associated with permafrost thaw caused by climate change versus disturbance of permafrost due to other human activities; and 4) the degree to which climate change is causing Alaska to be a sink versus a source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

On the vital question of how to approach climate change, the most influential economist is William Nordhaus whose explicit position is that we should decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only if cost - benefit analysis or an optimisation model concludes that the net benefits to humans are positive, where the relevant effects are essentially impacts on economic output (Nordhaus and Yang, 1996).

The report, The Human Cost of Weather - Related Disasters 1995 - 2015, is intended to focus attention during the UN climate change conference — which opens in Paris on Monday − on the damage already inflicted by global warming as a consequence of rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in turn as a consequence of the human combustion of fossil fuels and the destruction of the planet's forHuman Cost of Weather - Related Disasters 1995 - 2015, is intended to focus attention during the UN climate change conference — which opens in Paris on Monday − on the damage already inflicted by global warming as a consequence of rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in turn as a consequence of the human combustion of fossil fuels and the destruction of the planet's forhuman combustion of fossil fuels and the destruction of the planet's forests.

The key message from the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is that climate change is real, humans are the main culprits for the dramatic change and the cost of inaction will be catastClimate Change (IPCC) report is that climate change is real, humans are the main culprits for the dramatic change and the cost of inaction will be catastrChange (IPCC) report is that climate change is real, humans are the main culprits for the dramatic change and the cost of inaction will be catastclimate change is real, humans are the main culprits for the dramatic change and the cost of inaction will be catastrchange is real, humans are the main culprits for the dramatic change and the cost of inaction will be catastrchange and the cost of inaction will be catastrophic.

Reducing the impact on human health and mitigating climate change would save between two - and six - times more than the costs of decarbonization, according to IRENA's calculations.

Whereas the reports of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well asClimate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well asclimate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.

The social cost of carbon includes, for example, changes in net agricultural productivity and human health, property damage from increased flood risk, energy system costs, and the value of ecosystem services lost because of climate change.

But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human - caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.

In «Make a carbon tax part of reform effort» (Concord Monitor, 9/19/11), Holtz - Eakin argues for comprehensive tax reform to include a carbon tax so that more of the «true cost of burning a fossil fuel... in the form of air pollution, a negative impact on human health, harm to the environment or climate change [is a] component in economic decisions [such as] include whether to invest in a coal - fired power plant or a wind farm.»

December 2015 is the deadline for a global commitment that will bind the world and set it on the path to limit the temperature rise to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees C) in order to stop the dire, large scale human and environmental cost of doing nothing, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

I don't know — but it seems that the advocates of consensus climate change define things to make humans look as bad as possible and fail to take into consideration the positive results of increased warmth, the enhanced crop growth, the lower cost to heat a home during winter, the increased CO2 sinks which are absorbing 1/2 of our emissions and so on.

We have enough experience already with the devastating human and economic costs of climate change to know that we have to start living within our carbon means.

Change Management expert with solid grasp of relationship management, cost containment and human capital requirements that serve as the foundation of tactical initiatives, strategic business plans and performance management platforms that ensure viability in a volatile and challenging economic climate.