Example collocations logo

Mitigation in sentence

214 examples of Mitigation in a sentence

By failing to state explicitly what individual countries are required to deliver, it allows leaders to support targets that seem ambitious, while pursuing mitigation efforts that are in reality insignificant.
No scientific formula can describe how to share the burden of global mitigation equitably among countries, leaving every government able to declare confidently that its policies are in line with any given temperature target.
Hidden behind a vaguely defined formula, a third mitigation target has been introduced: reaching zero emissions in the second half of the century.
Ferguson now admits that he was wrong – that “confidence fell somewhat in the first two years under Prime Minister David Cameron” – but urges in mitigation that a “single factual error” does not invalidate “an entire argument.”
While the main focus has been on the impact of climate-change mitigation on industrialized countries, the urgent adaptation needs of the world’s poorest countries, in the face of possible catastrophe, have largely been ignored, at least in terms of concrete measures.
But climate-change mitigation and adaptation are costly.
European and other high-income countries, including the United States, must meet their obligation, in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle, to provide Africa with new, accessible, dependable, and reliable funding to support mitigation and adaptation strategies in areas such as disaster risk reduction, renewable energy, technology, and skill development.
And, though the costs of climate damage are staggering, scientific research indicates that mitigation costs are manageable.
Developing countries will, in the context of sustainable development and with measurable, reportable, and verifiable support in terms of financing, technology, and capacity-building, take nationally appropriate mitigation actions.
It is imperative that climate-change mitigation and adaptation policies be an integral part of development policy, not an addendum, at both the national and international levels.
And, when goods cross borders, does the consumer or the producer pay the mitigation cost?
The developing world also has a serious fairness objection to paying for climate-change mitigation.
But a simple shift of responsibility to the advanced countries by exempting developing countries from the mitigation process will not work.
If developing countries are allowed to grow, and there is no corresponding mitigation of the growth in their carbon emissions, average per capita CO2 emissions around the world will nearly double in the next 50 years, to roughly four times the safe level, regardless of what advanced countries do.
In other words, if the advanced countries absorb mitigation costs in the short run, while mitigation efforts lower emissions growth in developing countries, the conflict between developing countries’ growth and success in limiting global emissions may be reconciled – or at least substantially reduced.
But an advanced country could also undertake mitigation efforts in the developing world and thus earn additional credits equal to the full value of its mitigation efforts (thus allowing more emissions at home).
Such a system would trigger entrepreneurial searches for low-cost mitigation opportunities in developing countries, because rich countries would want to pay less by lowering emissions abroad.
As a result, mitigation would become more efficient, and the same expenditures by advanced countries would produce higher global emission reductions.
When the United Nations Secretary-General’s advisory group investigated how to raise money to pay for climate-change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, its members singled out instruments that address international aviation and shipping emissions as one of the most productive methods.
To feed a rapidly changing world, we must use new technology to re-imagine the oldest form of risk mitigation: community.
Meanwhile, institutional investors have been snapping up a series of climate bonds focusing on water, affordable housing, smart cities, and an array of other mitigation and adaption projects.
So far, however, the determination and mitigation of ethical concerns regarding machine behavior has largely emphasized the “refraining” part, preventing machines from engaging in ethically unacceptable behavior, which often comes at the cost of unnecessarily constraining their possible behaviors and domains of deployment.
Funds are needed to invest in new low-carbon energy sources, reforestation and protection of rain forests, land-use changes, and adaptation and mitigation.
Based on recent estimates of the developing world’s extra requests as a result of climate change, rich countries should be providing annual financial support – in addition to existing foreign-aid commitments– of about $100 billion for adaptation and $100 billion for mitigation by the early 2020’s.
Rich countries must also demonstrate that low-carbon growth is possible by investing in new technologies, which should be shared with developing countries to boost their mitigation efforts.
Effective waste mitigation requires action at all levels of government and society.
According to the Climate Policy Initiative, public financing for agriculture, forestry, and land-use mitigation attracted just $3 billion in 2014, compared to $49 billion for renewable energy generation and $26 billion for energy efficiency.
Major developing countries must also commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions.
But, with cities responsible for 70% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, mitigation is better.
To be sure, the issues are complex and difficult, especially those of financing adaptation and mitigation efforts in poorer countries.
BackNext