This illustrates the tangled politics of climate change & infrastructure. EPA has legally binding agreements w/ cities to reduce the raw sewage cities put in rivers during rainstorms. Cities don’t want to pay, & everything gets worse under climate change.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/climate/epa-sewage-rivers.html …
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
As our new paper led by Dr.
@lmcook88 shows, we don’t really have a good idea of how big to build gray or green infrastructure to deal w/ climate change, and small assumption changes can lead to different sizes, & costs. Solution: Satisfycing (w/ money).https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02649-6 …1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 18 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
The policy questions & fights about infrastructure are gonna get amplified, & we should get ready. Who pays? Who benefits? How is equity affected? How big to build? When? What does cost/benefit even mean? Idea: federal resilience grants matched with local mitigation investments.
1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 6 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of climate change is not an excuse to do nothing—doing nothing is also a choice & it has large costs. We need to maximize mitigation efforts, & make decisions about resilience that preserve options, center equity, and reduce impacts.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 8 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit
The math underlying climate resilience decisions under deep uncertainty focuses on “minimizing the maximum regret” — or minimizing the impact of choosing wrong. We & a bunch of other folks work on this.https://www.rand.org/methods/rdmlab.html …
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.