Sentences with phrase «only costs of climate change»

Of course natural disasters are far from being the only costs of climate change.

Not exact matches

So far most of the government apps seem modest in scope (think: Mapping crime reports or finding out when the next train will come), but O'Reilly suggested that this is only the beginning and that the approach can work for big problems like rising health care costs, poorly performing schools, and climate change.

Offering his only climate change policy prescription of the evening, he added, «That's why I'm going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.»

It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the scientific perspective because what we are finding right now with issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks like this because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.

But the transformation towards a sustainable future not only includes a rapid response to climate change — now more than ever we need systemic approaches that can bring integrated solutions with multiple benefits and reduced costs, on climate change as well as other areas of sustainable development.

Joydeep Gupta, editor of indiaclimatedialogue.net and a co-author on the report, said: «Given that India is ranked the second most vulnerable to the economic costs of climate change, only a strong global deal can generate the finance to avert disaster.

If we make the switch and rely on renewable sources of energy like the sun, we can save billions of dollars by avoiding not only the costs of replacing these plants, but also the increasingly higher costs of climate change in areas like healthcare expenses and damage from extreme weather.

Stern said that electricity from coal - fired power stations only appeared cheaper because the costs of air pollution and climate change were not included.

Then Hurricane Harvey devastated parts of Texas and Louisiana, highlighting not only the connections between climate change and hurricanes, but the costs of inaction in the face of mounting risks.

Reflecting the group's common position, he said, «Any delay in action on climate change will only add to our costs and the requirement of adaptation.

As Nicholas Stern - the UK economist who compiled the Stern Review of the economics of climate change in 2006 - noted in a paper last year that one of the standard models used to calculate costs produced only a 50 per cent reduction in GDP if global temperatures rose 19 degrees.

IIED: Accurate cost benefit analysis of climate change adaptation actions is not only critical in designing effective local - level adaptation strategies, but also for generating information that feeds into national and global climate policy agreements.

For instance, if the the US not only has economic interests in the climate change policies in political debate but also obligations and duties to poor vulnerable nations to not cause them great harm from US ghg emissions, the United States may not justify failure to act to reduce its ghg emissions on the basis of economic cost to the US.

Ekwurzel said the paper is only a first step for trying to sort out who is responsible for what as the costs of climate change grow.

the Michigan Tech scientists focussed only on deaths from air pollution linked to coal - burning power stations: they did not make a calculation about the economic costs of chronic illness linked to polluted air, nor did they estimate the health costs that might be linked to the entire coal industry, nor include the estimates of deaths that might be attributed to climate change as a consequence of prodigal fossil fuel combustion.

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).

Importantly, the Michigan Tech scientists focussed only on deaths from air pollution linked to coal - burning power stations: they did not make a calculation about the economic costs of chronic illness linked to polluted air, nor did they estimate the health costs that might be linked to the entire coal industry, nor include the estimates of deaths that might be attributed to climate change as a consequence of prodigal fossil fuel combustion.

With the usual irrationnal resistance of people towards any change, most of these unexpected things will be perceived as bad and dangerous However taking action with regard to a supposed qualitative impact of some climate variable on the final state afer a certain time would make sense only if the specific costs / inconvenients of the action were near to 0 or if the time horizont was very short.

These cumulative additional emissions savings would not only be a meaningful contribution toward a global effort to help limit some of the worst consequences of climate change; it can be done cost - effectively.

These combine to give good reason to believe that not only is our uncertainty about the cost of climate change is very asymmetrically distributed, but that uncertainties about enormously catastrophic damage have fat tails, possibly fat enough to dominate any calculation of expected value.

FThis cross-continent transport of food makes economic sense only because the true costs of such transport, including the big bill for its contribution to climate change, are not counted on the balance sheets of food corporations.

The Current Reconsideration of future vehicle MPG Standards must treat CO2 reduction as a cost, not a benefit, so that only consumer preferences matter, not climate change issues.

Not only do the economic climate models need to predict policy shifts, population growth, and the pace and type of climate changes to come — more droughts, more severe storms, higher temperatures in some places and lower in others, etc. — but they also try to quantify things such as agricultural and forestry losses, damage from catastrophic storms, utility costs, savings from efficiency improvements, water shortages, and sometimes even the economic consequences of refugee flows.

Omitted: The Bright Side of Global Warming It seems the U.N. IPCC only tabulates the benefits of climate change when they are outweighed by the costs.

In 2012 alone, the cost of weather disasters exceeded $ 110 billion in the United States, and climate change will only increase the frequency and intensity of these events.

The study's authors noted that the analysis did not take into account any positive contributions from avoiding the effects of climate change — only the legislation's costs to the economy.

Interactions between climate change and global economic growth: relevant stresses are linked not only to impacts of climate change on such things as resource supply and waste management but also to impacts of climate change response policies, which could affect development paths by requiring higher cost fuel choices (high confidence).