Sentences with phrase «under business as»

Quirke: In one of your posts, you mentioned that your best estimate for warming under a business as usual scenario — which I guess is unsuccessful mitigation and somewhere between the IPCC's RCP 6.5 and 8.5 emissions scenarios — is 3 °C by 2100.

It has become more important than ever for scientists, their allies, and public officials to speak out in no uncertain terms about the risks we face under a business as usual scenario.

«With the healthy diet that still contained some meat, global greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector only increased 7 percent by 2050, compared with an expectation of a 51 percent increase under business as usual.

IMO it's misleading, because the US administration is still insisting (a) on only discussing emissions intensity targets (for reducing, not total emissions, but only the rate of growth of US emissions), and US emissions intensity will reduce even under business as usual; and (b) the US administration is still insisting on only considering voluntary targets, despite the fact that even many major US corporations are calling for mandatory caps and despite the fact that there is no evidence that their existing voluntary targets have made any difference.

Arctic Currents Weaken or Stop With Double CO2 Levels What they found was that under a business as usual scenario, with CO2 levels doubling by 2070, the Transpolar Drift stops and other Arctic currents weaken due to, among other factors, melting of sea ice and changed wind patterns in a warmer world.

So if anthropic CO2 is causing warming how long and how many ppm under Business As Usual before fig 1 is reversed and the NH ice sheet melts?

While other nations would have to work reasonably hard to meet their commitments — under business as usual, Europe's emissions were expected to rise by around 20 % over the period, so cutting them by 8 % would require serious effort — Australia would have to do virtually nothing.

A 65 % global increase above the 2004 primary energy demand (464 EJ, 11,204 Mtoe) is anticipated by 2030 under business as usual (IEA, 2006b).

GAS — In a 2C world gas growth will be «at a lower level than expected under a business as usual scenario», the report finds.

Under business as usual: agricultural sector pretty much dead, tourism industry dead, coastal communities exposed and rampant dengue fever.

The 4 C number is possible by late this Century under business as usual fossil fuel burning and is possible long term (500 year time scales) under the continuous 490 ppm CO2e forcing now in place.

Sadly, many new studies on the rate of glacier destabilization in Antarctica and Greenland hint that such a significant jump in sea level is not only likely, but may even be significantly exceeded under business as usual or even a moderately curtailed rate of fossil fuel burning.

As much as 70 percent of the ice within the great Himalayan glaciers could melt out by 2100 under business as usual fossil fuel burning.

3) At 1.7 C per doubling, we can expect about twice as much warming as that under business as usual, as not only is CO2 itself going to more than double, but there are other greenhouse gases aside from CO2 that are increasing.

These models project a large, 8.3 °C warming by the end of the century under a business as usual scenario, further highlighting the need for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

However, under business as usual emissions are set to increase global average temperatures by approximately 2.5 °C.

Today we are already in the process to trigger a large scale climate change because of the quantities of CO2 equivalent emissions released and what is projected under business as usual scenarios.

However, as the Stern Review itself notes, this is unrealistic under business as usual since global greenhouse gas emissions can be expected to continue to increase on a «rapidly rising trajectory.»

Under a business as usual scenario, with rising prices, investment ramps up again.

The lower boundary of this range is with rapid reductions in human greenhouse gas emissions, the upper boundary is under business as usual.

Jack, 2.7 is very definitely worth it, compared with 5 or so under business as usual.

They assumed that «under business as usual» their emissions would increase from 781 (2013) to 1110 (2030) million tons of CO2 equivalent.

Progressively over that span, the panel's reports have raised the likelihood that people, mainly by burning billions of tons of coal and oil, have been the main force responsible for global warming since 1950 and that a lot more warming, coastal retreats and shifting weather are in the offing under business as usual.

Potentially to ever more shouting, disengagement, and a migration of debate to the edges, in a way that obscures all the well - established science pointing to huge consequences under business as usual — for everything from the diversity of life to the stability of climate.

What if we recognize that under business as usual CO2 won't stop at a doubling, but go on eventually to a quadrupling or worse?

In this case you need to demonstrate that destruction and death will be significantly more widespread under business as usual scenario compared to mitigated.

The inventory of CO32 -, the buffering agent, is about 2000 Gton C, which is about how much fossil carbon we are projected to release under business as usual by the year 2100.

The most likely outcome under business as usual is that the country will become one vast, regularly inundated flood plain, with a continually displaced population.

Personally, in economic terms and under business as usual, I believe we could see the beginnings of an economic crisis in this century which will dwarf the Great Depression both in terms of its severity and duration.

Thats under business as usual.

Then we have the commercial model and rights whether these sales fall under business as usual, subsidiary sales, or whatever.

Not exact matches

Under a «business as usual» scenario in which past trends continue, the expected temperature increase in 2100 is 4.2 degrees Celsius (7.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental laws, such as U.S. export control laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.

The shift comes three months after Walmart appointed Judith McKenna as the new head of its international business and seems to be an attempt to revamp the under - performing unit.

To take advantage, you must have an export credit sales volume of less than $ 5 million in the past three years before application, your company must qualify as a small business under the Small Business Administration's definition of the term and you must have been in business at least one year with a positive nebusiness under the Small Business Administration's definition of the term and you must have been in business at least one year with a positive neBusiness Administration's definition of the term and you must have been in business at least one year with a positive nebusiness at least one year with a positive net worth.

She added, «This is problematic as over half of small businesses survey are seeking loans of under $ 100,000, leaving a critical gap in the small business loan market.»

«We were a bit late recognising that one, but it's done wonders for our cash flow,» Mr King said.The company recently appointed business development manager Chris Temov, who has been working closely with Austrade and the WA government, which are currently providing free market research, with an emphasis on comparative pricing and delivery in the UK.The research is provided under the company's status as a new exporter.

Other analysts, such as Larry Downes, project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy, an economic policy think tank, say both reclassification under Title II and regulating under section 706 represent overreach by the FCC.

The CEO can start to see himself as both indispensable (there's no way the business could survive under anyone else's guidance) and exceptional (normal rules don't apply to him).

Sampat also co-founded KurbKarma, was named a «San Francisco Business Times 40 under 40 ″ honoree, as well as one of «50 Women in Tech Dominating Silicon Valley» in 2015.

That's because under current law, profits from a small business «pass through» to the owner and is taxed at his or her individual rate, which can be as high as 39.6 percent.

The report notes that British Columbia leads the country with 3.7 % of its working population owning a startup, defined as a business under two years of age.

There is a second test under the legislation that establishes a ratio of wage income and business income based on level of capital investment that some industries, such as doctors, accountants, lawyers, are required to use this second test.

As I sat among the innovators and business leaders of DWEN, which considers itself a «business conference, not women's conference,» it was clear to me that the future of business is shifting under our feet.

Xerox has been under pressure to find new growth sources as it struggles to reinvent its legacy business amid waning demand for office printing.

United Bank Card has benefited both from being named No. 6 on the Inc. 500 list as well as me being named a 30 Under 30 winner by having our brand promoted to business owners throughout the country.

About Lewis Howes: Lewis is a business coach, keynote speaker, athlete and investor, who was recognized by President Obama as one of the top 100 entrepreneurs in the country under 30 and has been featured in The New York Times, People, Men's Health, The Today Show and other major media outlets.

Under her leadership, Sprint Business has seen record - setting growth as she implements its mission to be the preeminent trusted advisor to Small, Mid and Enterprise businesses.

As Bloomberg notes, rival apparel companies like Under Armour (UA) and Adidas (ADS) are likely to enter the bidding for the lucrative Texas contract — which could be worth more than $ 15 million per year — once it comes up for grabs, which means Nike will face some fierce competition if it wants to keep doing business with the school.