Sentences with phrase «make adaptation cost»

There is at least some chance, if not a good chance, that climate will get colder not warmer and then mitigation costs have only gone to make adaptation cost even higher becaue mitigation went the wrong way i.e. worse than useless.

Not exact matches

His main research interests are in the development and application of probabilistic concepts and methods to civil and marine engineering, including: structural reliability; life - cycle cost analysis; probability - based assessment, design, and multi-criteria life - cycle optimization of structures and infrastructure systems; structural health monitoring; life - cycle performance maintenance and management of structures and distributed infrastructure under extreme events (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and floods); risk - based assessment and decision making; multi-hazard risk mitigation; infrastructure sustainability and resilience to disasters; climate change adaptation; and probabilistic mechanics.

There had been many failed attempts to bring the material to the big screen, but somehow Stanton was able to convince the studio heads to let him be the one to make the adaptation at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

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.

As you say it makes little difference whether sea level is 3 m higher or lower, but if cities are built next to the present shore line, adaptation has a cost.

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.

We clearly have to take actions on many levels, but you can ruminate on the morality of the following postion: Assuming that hurricane damage in the US is driven by settlement of the Gulf Coast, the US might make a policy choice to emphasize adaptation (the cost of resettlement would be astronomical (> 10 ^ Kyoto).

Without a clear understanding of how adaptation and loses and damages costs increase dramatically as delays continue in making adequate dramatic ghg emissions reductions, citizens can not evaluate the need of their nations to act rapidly to reduce ghg emissions.

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

Thus, high upfront costs make them reluctant to invest in mitigation or adaptation measures.

But economic analysis, which focuses on the monetary costs and benefits of an option, is just one important component of decision making relating to adaptation alternatives, and final decisions about such measures are almost never based on this information alone.

It was between 10 and 100 times more costly to try to make global warming go away today than to let the warming occur — even if the warming were at the rate predicted by the IPCC, and even if the cost of inaction was as high as the Stern Report had imagined — and to concentrate on focused adaptation when and where and only if and only to the extent that might be necessary.

One aspect of the decision making process that seems to get short shrift is quantifying the costs involved in mitigation and adaptation versus the potential costs of future events (obviously, the scenario discovery you mentioned would be the first step to quantifying the full range of possible outcomes).

Alternatively, these technologies could make possible a more rapid reduction of net radiative forcing and a corresponding reduction in the risk of adverse impacts and the costs of adaptation.

However, it's not just on the cost of adaptation that the proposed ERF makes miscalculations: it also gets wrong the global costs of mitigation effort in 2020.

Because much of the cost will be realized after the emissions occur, the funds would have to be invested in order to produce resources in the future to compensate or make the best of conditions then; this can be investment in infrastructure (aquaducts and flood water management planning) and such things as R&D for drought / flood resistant crops, efforts to save ecosystems (those parts that will survive the climate change, or otherwise planting trees, etc, where they will do well in the future, or otherwise reducing other stresses so that ecosystems will be more resilient to climate change)(remember that ecosystems provide us with ecosystem services), etc, and / or investment in the economy in general so that more resources will be available in the future to compensate for losses and pay for adaptation.

Uh... if you don't care about the science, what makes you think adaptation is a more cost - effective public policy than mitigation?

If you can pollute «climate adaptation» discussions with enough absolutely loony and unquantifiably expensive ideas like this, it makes the cost of «carbon reduction» schemes seem cheap by comparison.