This underscores the realization that simply reducing consumption,
mitigating harm done to the environment, won't be enough to reverse global warming.
Not exact matches
«There's nothing that can be
done to reduce the
harm or
mitigate the bad consequences,» says Faden.
Although such offsets will never be enough
to overcome all opposition, some voters will be open
to evidence about how much
harm was really
done and whether efforts have been made
to mitigate it.
So he's accuming people who don't believe in AGW of not being «happy» about policies
to mitigate it despite the fact that they will almost certainly
do more
harm than good in the absense of AGW?
Climate deniers live in a fantasy world where (i) rising temperature can
do no economic
harm to the planet and (ii) any attempt
to mitigate rising temperature will bankrupt the planet.
Their companies are nimble, agile and fast, so they can quickly make changes if they determine that their strategies are
doing harm, or if they discover new ways
to create value rather than
mitigate risk.
If GHG emissions are
doing more good than
harm, then any policy
to mitigate GHG emissions is
doing even more
harm.
For example,
do we try
to mitigate against forest
harm by assuming the previous climate will return, or
do we accept it and plant new trees that are better adapted?
People may or may not adjust their behavior in response
to climate change, and they may or may not
do so on a time scale that
mitigates extreme
harm.
You'd think that given a brief summary of the possible AGW
harms that could happen if we don't
mitigate, people surely would go all out and
mitigate to their upmost abilities, esp since it can be
done in rich countries down
to even a 75 % or more reduction without lowering productivity or living standards.
While the linked podcast indicates that this is not an easy thing
to objectively define, it includes accepting that what you
did was wrong and
mitigating the
harm that was
done which would include cooperating with law enforcement.
In order
to mitigate harm between the ages of 18 and 25, the task force recommends that governments should
do all that they can
to discourage and delay cannabis use.
To the extent a covered entity already has methods for mitigating harm, this rule will not pose significant burden, since we don't require the covered entity to follow any prescribed method or set of rule
To the extent a covered entity already has methods for
mitigating harm, this rule will not pose significant burden, since we don't require the covered entity
to follow any prescribed method or set of rule
to follow any prescribed method or set of rules.
Are you suggesting that as lawyers, we
do not have an obligation
to mitigate the potential
harms associated with protecting the presumption of innocence?