Of all of the big fossil - fuel companies, Shell has adopted perhaps the most constructive
position on climate change mitigation.
Not exact matches
At least half of the 60 - plus S&T related
positions identified in the Academy report will involve some level of involvement in one aspect or another of
climate change: scientific research; assessment of
climate change impacts; analysis and evaluation of adaptation and
mitigation strategies; development of energy and other technologies for a carbon - constrained economy and society; and so
on.
Most Lukewarmers who write about
climate change have offered individual assessments, but none of us have said «this is a lukearmer
position on adaptation or
mitigation.»
All in all, a number of U.S. fossil - fuel development and export policy
positions suggest an administration that is attempting to straddle
climate and energy policy in such a way that it wins support
on the progressive side for having a proactive domestic
climate policy while, in effect, failing to challenge the obstacle to
climate change mitigation posed by corporate energy interests and their global ambitions.
According to a member of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, «Agriculture is in
position of immediately implementing
mitigation strategy because the existing techniques - properly applied - can ensure large GHG emissions reduction.»
So we find a person in his 20's who has yet to be awarded a PhD, who has been a Greenpeace activist, but who is awarded a
position as a coordinating lead author
on a vital IPCC Chapter which concludes with very high confidence that
mitigation is required to head off the more damaging effects of man - made
climate change.