Example collocations logo

Mitigation in sentence

214 examples of Mitigation in a sentence

And, for the first time ever, countries made large pledges to finance mitigation and adaptation efforts: $30 billion over the next three years for fast-start financing, and $100 billion per year by 2020.
An African Green Fund for both adaptation and mitigation could put resources and experience to good use in one of the most vulnerable parts of the world– and one that is full of opportunity in the new low-carbon era.
While resources for climate-change adaptation and mitigation may have different fiscal origins from more traditional development resources, it would be damaging to keep them separate in their use: from agriculture, construction, and power to technology and deforestation, the simple fact is that development, adaptation, and mitigation are often inextricably intertwined.
Yet the international community currently spends on risk mitigation less than one-fifth of what it spends on natural-disaster response.
So far, rich countries have not risen to the challenge; despite commitments made at Kyoto, Bali, and elsewhere, the resources committed for climate-change mitigation – let alone adaptation – in developing countries have been paltry and poorly targeted.
Though private finance may be more expensive than tax-advantaged public finance, over a project’s entire life, a PPP can benefit its government partner in numerous ways: through innovation; reduced design, construction, and lifetime maintenance costs; and risk mitigation.
Some American lawyers are now using such a “genetic defense” as mitigation for convicted murderers.
According to a recent assessment by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, global financial flows for mitigation and adaptation measures amounted to $340-650 billion in 2011-2012.
Policymakers should thus pursue integrated solutions that combine climate-change adaptation and mitigation with broader societal concerns, including development.
Without mitigation, and assuming that the high-growth developing countries reach current advanced-country levels of annual per capita CO2 emissions (10 to 11 tons, though much higher in North America), the current global average of 4.8 tons will almost double in 50 years, to 8.7 tons.
On our current course, without a significant mitigation effort, by mid-century we would be at around four times the safe level.
This is one reason why successful mitigation at the global level faces stiff headwinds.
Given the structure of the problem – sequential decision-making with uncertainty about all the relevant parameters (including costs, the efficient pattern of mitigation, and technology) – it would be wiser to adopt a more flexible strategy that provides incentives and regulations to achieve measurable intermediate progress, while generating a lot of useful information along the way.
As these are still unknown today, the initial challenge will be to jump-start the mitigation and learning processes, and create powerful incentives for technology that will increase energy efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions in the long run.
But those costs will have a significantly higher expected value if we do not adopt sensible global strategies that include adjusting our mitigation efforts in response to new information.
In 2009, recognizing that market forces alone will not generate the investments needed for climate change mitigation as well as affordable nutrition for all, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed a Global Green New Deal, including proposed cross-border, public-private partnerships, especially to generate renewable energy and increase sustainable food production.
Another similarity between Japan’s current crisis and the recent financial crisis is that the false risk assessment was largely due to the asymmetric distribution of social welfare and individual cost implied by more effective risk mitigation.
But, as the 2015 deadline nears, efforts to achieve MDGs must be intensified to ensure further progress on food security, gender equality, maternal health, sanitation, infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
But solving the complex coordination and distributional problems that such adjustments will generate will not be easy, and, convinced that we cannot afford an aggressive mitigation strategy at a time when we are faced with so many other pressing challenges, policymakers could be tempted to defer action on the ground.
If those costs are deferred for 15 years or more, mitigation targets will be impossible to achieve, at any cost.
Even with massive expansion in solar and wind power projects, most forecasts assume that meeting global climate mitigation goals will require at least a 50% increase in hydropower capacity by 2040.
By some estimates, if the world completes all of the dam projects currently underway or planned without mitigation measures, the resulting infrastructure would disrupt 300,000 kilometers (186,411 miles) of free-flowing rivers – a length equivalent to seven trips around the planet.
Even the commitment of the accord to provide amounts approaching $30 billion for the period 2010-2012 for adaptation and mitigation appears paltry next to the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been doled out to the banks in the bailouts of 2008-2009.
Given the difficulty of coming up with even $10 billion a year – let alone the $200 billion a year that is needed for mitigation and adaptation – it is wishful thinking to expect an agreement along these lines.
Cost-benefit analysis is a principal tool for deciding whether altering it through mitigation policy is warranted.
Because the possible outcomes of global warming in the absence of mitigation are very uncertain, though surely bad, the uncertain losses should be evaluated as being equivalent to a single loss greater than the expected loss.
A straightforward calculation shows that mitigation is better than business as usual – that is, the present value of the benefits exceeds the present value of the costs – for any social rate of time preference less than 8.5%.
These calculations indicate that, even with higher discounting, the Stern Review’s estimates of future benefits and costs imply that mitigation makes economic sense.
Women are the most convincing advocates for the solutions that they need, so they should be at the forefront of decision-making on sustainable development and climate-change mitigation.
We also have to find a way to provide funding for adaptation and mitigation – to protect people from the impact of climate change and enable economies to grow while holding down pollution levels – while guarding against trade protection in the name of climate change mitigation.
BackNext