Sentences with phrase «net than mitigation»

Not exact matches

The group developed a proposal later adopted by the WG, which states that by 2050, annual CO2 emissions derived from Earth System Models following RCP2.6, a mitigation scenario, are smaller than 1990 emissions, and that by the end of the 21st century, about half of the models infer emissions slightly above zero, while the other half infer a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

If you respect uncertainty, then you account for the possibility of net economic benefit from ACO2 mitigation rather than rely on imperfect and unvalidated and unverified modeling that shows a net cost — particularly since those models don't provide a «full - cost accounting» of externalities,.

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.

If you think you have a better way to quantify and present the global net - benefits of GHG mitigation policies than the globally accepted standard, please show the equivalent chart in units of measure you deem appropriate, provide links to the basis for it, method, inputs, assumptions, and all else needed to be able to understand it and reproduce it (as I di for the above chart: https://anglejournal.com/article/2015-11-why-carbon-pricing-will-not-succeed/.

You observed a few months ago that «the net benefit of the mitigation policies would be far lower than the red line on the chart» (https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/16/cop21-developing-countries/#comment-804327).

I've plotted the DICE net - benefit of mitigation policies per 5 years for just this century, rather than plotting cumulative out to 2300, which is commonly done but hides the reality of the negative net costs this century.

[note] In this context it intrigues me that those who advocate for stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) tend to ignore the possibility that the possible termination effect would increase net risk from greenhouse gas emissions, and the deployment of SAI should therefore (in risk adjustment terms) justify accelerated mitigation rather than reduced mitigation.

And I can't run models, other than simple ones in Excel where I can change input parameters and view the results — preferably in the charts I am most interested in; e.g., your Figure 3 here http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0613-3 and my Figure 1 from DICE - 2013R outputs showing net benefit of mitigation policies per 5 years to 2100 (posted @ December 30, 2016 at 10:52 pm up thread).

advocating for GHG mitigation policies given they will almost certainly cost far more than current projections and deliver no net benefits from reduced climate damages?

The treaty's net contribution to climate mitigation is about five to six times larger than the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period targets.