Someone's going to have to convince me that measuring and modelling is far more
important than mitigation — and at this point you know, none of my leadership believe that.
Not exact matches
He supports that, but thinks the US and global politics will probably make that impossible - but that a worse deal
than that would still be
important, though it involves more
mitigation of some catastrophic effects
than a sufficient deal.
As someone who has at times been on the receiving end of Dave Roberts» wrath for daring to express a view a bit different
than his (e.g., adaptation is really
important and not a substitute for
mitigation), I'd agree that tone matters a great deal in politics.
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.
I commend Mr. Flannery for writing about such an
important topic, but I think his article could have benefited from framing carbon removal solutions as a missing piece of the climate change
mitigation portfolio, rather
than as a «third way» for fighting climate change.
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.
The pace of innovation matters far more
than efforts to boost public support for climate
mitigation, we will contend, even though such efforts are also
important.
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.