"... are complementary strategies" - Means: You adapt if you like but the writer wants to "mitigate" anyway.
"... for reducing and managing the risks of climate change." The writer is deluded enough to think that he can control the climate.
"Substantial emissions reductions ..." - What the writer wants to do. This will adversely affect the lives of everyone on the planet but the writer likes to control people.
"... over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer term, and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development." The writer seeks to justify his actions by claiming that things will be better if we do it his way.
"Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by
itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives." The writer knows that he can't really fix the climate but is prepared to BS his way through.
Rather than restating the entire thing, I'm going to define the terms I think you may be having problems with.
Adaptation--adjusting the things we do to deal with climate change, such as putting sea walls around low-lying cities to prevent flooding
mitigation--trying to reduce the amount of climate changes, such as by going after the sources--mostly atmospheric CO2
climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development--ways we can develop that will work with a variety of different climates
sufficient--enough
effective implementation--actually getting it done, and done well
integrated responses--plans that work together
societal objectives--things we, as a society, want to do
(an example of "integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives" might be, say, putting in a light-rail system in a city, to both reduce car emissions, and reduce traffic; and making it very cheap or free for people with low-enough incomes, to help the poor)
Let me know if you have any other points of confusion.
Give it a rest Chem. what severe, persuasive, irreversible impacts? I will grant you rising sea levels but that is all, I would need proof (evidence) which you do not supply, I see substantial benefits to warming and more CO2, increase in agricultual food productions (which is happening right now) increase in vegetation, greening our planet, http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress...
Do the green agenda or you will drown.
Thank you
prolly not
Adaptation and mitigation are complementary strategies for reducing and managing the risks of climate change.
Substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades can reduce climate risks in the 21st century and
beyond, increase prospects for effective adaptation, reduce the costs and challenges of mitigation in the longer
term, and contribute to climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development.
Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by
itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through
integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives.
