«The delay in the emergence of the benefits also suggest that we should start sooner rather than later to think
seriously about mitigation,» said paper author Claudia Tebaldi, a research scientist at Climate Central and a visiting scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Not exact matches
Until such time as meaningful
mitigation is
seriously considered and planned for, the real - world scenario remains BAU and the debate which actually matters remains the one
about the size of the fossil fuel reserves.
But his refutation of what he saw as sloppy logic certainly does not imply skepticism
about climate change and the need to take
mitigation and adaptation efforts
seriously, he insists.
He treats the «moral hazard» — that critical actors might reduce
mitigation efforts if geoengineering is available —
seriously, and neatly encapsulates one scary variant as the «superfreak pivot» (that climate deniers will shift to support geoengineering as yet another reason to do nothing
about emissions).
Until such time as meaningful
mitigation is
seriously considered and planned for, the real - world scenario remains BAU and the debate which actually matters remains the one
about the size of the fossil fuel reserves.