Review of the Central Proposition Sample Clauses

Review of the Central Proposition sets out a paraphrase of the objectives of this project in the form of a Central Proposition. This is set out again below in italics. This proposition is then used in the subsequent sub-sections to assess the value of the findings of this work in context. However, before doing so, it is appropriate to reflect for a moment on the proposition itself. Following the passing of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, CARB published a Staff Report in November 200712 quantifying the baseline emissions in 1990 and, thereby, establishing the target for emissions from the State in 2020. The total agreed was 427 million tCO2-eq. That target was seen to be a 25% reduction against the levels existing in 2006 when AB 32 was passed, but is now seen as a 15% reduction in 2010 – indicating the impact of the recession on emissions in the interim. The Business-as- Usual projections contained in the Staff Report suggested that emissions would reach 600 million tCO2-eq. per annum in 2020, making a reduction of 40% necessary. Clearly, per capita targets would depend on changes in population in the intervening period. With real savings of 173 million tCO2-eq. required annually by 2020, it was clear that a number of measures would be required. These have been set out in California’s Climate Action Plan which is being continually updated as new policy initiatives are evaluated and agreed upon. High Global Warming Potential Gases are already part of that Plan, particularly where HFCs have been replacements for ODS. However, there has been more debate about the inclusion of ODSs themselves. These were not included in the baseline plotted in the Staff Report of 2007, but it was acknowledged 12 California Air Resources Board – Staff Report ‘California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Emissions Limit’ – November 16, 2007 (CARB, 2007b) that HFC use in 1990 was at its very early stages because the transition away from ODSs had only just begun at that point. Irrespective of the ultimate policy treatment, it is meaningful to evaluate the potential avoided emissions from ODS/HFC recovery and destructive in the light of the 173 million tCO2-eq. annual target in 2020. The mitigation scenarios selected during this project have already been outlined in Section 3.9. However, it is worth reviewing the global context for the selection of these specific measures.
View SourceView Similar (2)

Related to Review of the Central Proposition

  • Statewide HUB Program Statewide Procurement Division Note: In order for State agencies and institutions of higher education (universities) to be credited for utilizing this business as a HUB, they must award payment under the Certificate/VID Number identified above. Agencies, universities and prime contractors are encouraged to verify the company’s HUB certification prior to issuing a notice of award by accessing the Internet (▇▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇/tpasscmblsearch/index.jsp) or by contacting

  • Search, Enquiry, Investigation, Examination And Verification a. The Property is sold on an “as is where is basis” subject to all the necessary inspection, search (including but not limited to the status of title), enquiry (including but not limited to the terms of consent to transfer and/or assignment and outstanding charges), investigation, examination and verification of which the Purchaser is already advised to conduct prior to the auction and which the Purchaser warrants to the Assignee has been conducted by the Purchaser’s independent legal advisors at the time of execution of the Memorandum. b. The intending bidder or the Purchaser is responsible at own costs and expenses to make and shall be deemed to have carried out own search, enquiry, investigation, examination and verification on all liabilities and encumbrances affecting the Property, the title particulars as well as the accuracy and correctness of the particulars and information provided. c. The Purchaser shall be deemed to purchase the Property in all respects subject thereto and shall also be deemed to have full knowledge of the state and condition of the Property regardless of whether or not the said search, enquiry, investigation, examination and verification have been conducted. d. The Purchaser shall be deemed to have read, understood and accepted these Conditions of Sale prior to the auction and to have knowledge of all matters which would have been disclosed thereby and the Purchaser expressly warrants to the Assignee that the Purchaser has sought independent legal advice on all matters pertaining to this sale and has been advised by his/her/its independent legal advisor of the effect of all the Conditions of Sale. e. Neither the Assignee nor the Auctioneer shall be required or bound to inform the Purchaser of any such matters whether known to them or not and the Purchaser shall raise no enquiry, requisition or objection thereon or thereto.

  • Constructability Review Prepare detailed interdisciplinary constructability review within Fourteen (14) days of receipt of the plans from the District that: 10.1.2.1.6.1 Ensures construction documents are well coordinated and reviewed for errors; 10.1.2.1.6.2 Identifies to the extent known, construction deficiencies and areas of concern; 10.1.2.1.6.3 Back-checks design drawings for inclusion of modifications; and 10.1.2.1.6.4 Provides the District with written confirmation that: 10.1.2.1.6.4.1 Requirements noted in the design documents prepared for the Project are consistent with and conform to the District's Project requirements and design standards. 10.1.2.1.6.4.2 Various components have been coordinated and are consistent with each other so as to minimize conflicts within or between components of the design documents.

  • CENTRAL LABOUR RELATIONS COMMITTEE C4.1 OPSBA, the Crown and OSSTF agree to establish a joint Central Labour Relations Committee to promote and facilitate communication between rounds of bargaining on issues of joint interest.