Sentences with phrase «talk about the mitigation»

WE KNOW THIS: The NSA routinely talks about mitigation efforts to purge U.S. people data; however, they always talk about these measures being taken after they have control of the data.

It has also been the reason why scientists in the climate field are all talking about mitigation and adaptation efforts in combating the climate change; the greatest threat ever confronted mankind.

Assistant Park City manager Matt Dias and Park City Museum director Sandra Morrison talk about the mitigation efforts to save the Daly West Mine structure.

And you have to be specific about whether you are talking about mitigation short - term or sustainability long term.

So are we only allowed to talk about mitigation all the time, lest we be labeled as giving «cover» to the bad guys?

For a long time it was common place to talk about mitigation and adaptation.

Of course, if you want to go further and talk about mitigation, then just predicting warming versus cooling is clearly insufficient: you have to know the extent of the warming.

If you want to talk about mitigation then the extent to which we're contributing and by how much the earth will warm is what matters.

Not exact matches

All his talk about sin is at bottom palliation for sin, an excuse, a sinful mitigation.

I'm not just talking about the leather - trimmed seats and ventilated seats — I mean the technology, such as the collision warning / crash mitigation and lane keeping features.

Safety and After Sales Service — Talking about safety, the 2018 Volvo XC40 comes with 7 - airbags, ABS with EBD and radar - based safety functions like adaptive cruise control, City Safety, Pilot Assist, collision mitigation and lane - keeping assist.

National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB) head Willem Rampangilei (center) talks to local authorities about the potential eruption of Mount Agung during a visit to the volcano's observation post in Bali on Sept. 20.

All ready: National Disaster Mitigation Agency (BNPB) head Willem Rampangilei (center) talks to local authorities about the potential eruption of Mount Agung during a visit to the volcano's observation post in Bali on Sept. 20.

We need more campaigners talking about adaptation for the global poor rather than all mitigation; same with the media.

Talk about «policy», «Pruitt may be invited to the Korean Summit», and «leadership in the US» is not science — that's politics — and it belongs in the mitigation thread, not in a science thread.

We talk alot these days about mitigation, and we need to.

If they're lousy odds, then shouldn't we be talking about easier fixes first, like mitigation soot & ozone emissions?

Maybe we can talk about it another time... keep an eye out for Amazon Indigenous REDD + and Bolivia's Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism (JMAM), among others.

Why are we using that bloody awful word «mitigation» to talk about the desperate need to deal with the causes of our problems rather than its symptoms.

Then after scientists like Hansen started projecting some very large effects of business as usual, mitigation policies started getting talked about, following on international mitigation successes with acid rain and ozone.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told reporters, «When we talk about the need for a fast - start fund for adaptation purposes, as well as mitigation purposes, it's to provide the immediate resources necessary for a number of those states to deal with the real challenges that their populations face in the here and now, starting in 2010, 2011, 2012, before, in fact, the post-Kyoto agreement would kick in.»

You're talking about 20 years out — but isn't it possible that technological developments in those 20 years might produce mitigation strategies / options that would result in an exponentially greater difference 50 or 100 years out than what is represented by 510 - 480 ppm?

I am particularly concerned about their prescriptive power, which does not seem to get discussed much, so I thought I would talk about it and confidence in prescribed mitigation.

There is an urgency that is required of the environmental movement to talk about what failure to win on mitigation or adaptation on a large scale, in meaningful ways, could likely result in — geoengineering / climate engineering of the environment as the only option.

These steps I'm talking about are: mitigation and adaptation finance, technology transfer, and capacity building; the Climate Vulnerable Forum is demanding that these steps are taken in a transparent, consensual, and accountable manner that prioritizes the needs of the most vulnerable countries.

That's how mitigation policy was born and incubated so talking about adaptation doesn't do justice for the decades of expert power seeking and manipulation associated to AGW and statist efforts.

So no, uncertainty is no one's friend, whether we talk about damages from climate change or the costs of mitigation.

In other words, in the face of poor progress on mitigation, let's not be caught with our pants down again, and start talking about (and researching and testing) geoengineering while there is still time.

For example, some groups are definitely upset regarding current talk about nuclear plant increases, an unwanted side effect of CO2 mitigation in highly energy - dependent economies.

And if you are not sure about the benefits of mitigation — I recently went to a talk by an Indian scientist who spoke about the melting Himalayan glaciers and his fear that, if we don't stabilise the atmosphere, they will go and stop feeding those major rivers that provide water and make agriculture possible for 1 - 2 billion people.

«As we talk about policies that would make cool roofs an important climate mitigation measure all across the world, we want to know how things change in a country like India, which has more pollution,» said Surabi Menon, a climate scientist at Berkeley Lab who is one of the lead researchers on the project.

I mean, assuming there will be no global geo - engineering scheme that removes CO2 from the atmosphere on a massive scale, if I were to take the IPCC's middle - of - the - road ECS estimate of 3º Celsius per doubling of atmospheric CO2eq and combine it with a rather weak climate mitigation emissions scenario (e.g., RCP 6.5, which peaks around 850 CO2eq ppm)... we are talking about 120º Fahrenheit days being a common occurrence in the summers of Houston far into the future, right?

The other thing is we are talking about risk mitigation.