Dr. Klaus Jacob, a senior research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and an executive committee member of the New York City Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation, estimated that a magnitude 5 earthquake could cause about $5 billion of damage.
In the United Kingdom, the Carbon Trust, a government-funded company promoting climate change mitigation, estimates somewhat more optimistically that in the long run, wave and tidal power together could supply 15 20% of British electricity needs.
While directional antennas can perform interference mitigation by estimating the direction of the incoming signals at the receiver, we show that reconfigurable MIMO antennas can achieve a similar result, with lower system complexity, by only estimating the channel matrix.
Under the circumstances, seismic hazard analysis is considered a more practical approach for earthquake hazard mitigation, by estimating the annual rate of earthquake ground motions (or seismic hazard) based on seismicity and other geological evidences.
Although we believe that mitigation of effect estimate bias in our assumed causal structure accounts for our findings, alternate explanations are possible.
For example, the change in results after restriction of the sample to those ≤ 45 years old at baseline, which we have labeled as attributable to mitigation of effect estimate bias, could also be explained by effect modification by age.
John Ryan, until recently the president of the Wetland Mitigation Banking association, estimates that 8,000-acres' worth of credits were issued last year.
For example, the size of unprotected forestland in West region was 68% smaller than that of North region, but its carbon mitigation potential was estimated 60% greater than that of North region (22 Tg C vs. 14 Tg C, Table 2).
We present a simple and practical approach for identifying areas of high deforestation risk that can be considered "additional" areas for REDD+ mitigation actions, and estimating potential forest area loss and carbon emissions under a BAU scenario.
Because one purpose of the present study was to provide input into policies for arsenic mitigation, we include estimates discounted at 3% (the discounting rate used in the standard GBD figures) alongside those with zero discounting.
