Common use of Maybe Clause in Contracts

Maybe. Reactive retreat could be caused by single events (floods), but also by a sequence of events. Yes. Reactive retreat occurs on much faster pace than proactive retreat as it react to a certain event. Yes. See above. Even more probably then in the proactive case. But still possible. (Example: New Orleans – pump the water out, rebuild dikes, rebuild city). However, the new state is different from the old one. No. Direct cost (migration cost). The green investments become the mainstream investments More-or-less: the increased initiatives and requirements for sustainable finance will accelerate a transition Yes: at some point this will go fast Structurally there will be much less investment in fossil fuelled development Probably no way back Major impact on mitigation and adaptation Necessary requirements Optional requirements Focus of COACCH Examples\criteria C1. Small cause large effect (non- linear) C2. Rapid change C3. Structural reconfiguration C4. Irreversibility C5. System feedbacks Policy relevance Renewable energy becomes more attractive investment than fossil fuels [GRAZ] §5.8 Yes, financial viability is a tipping point – policies on top of current cost decline of renewables can move them there Yes, with tipping point investment redirected to new energy source capacities Yes, energy system (and sectors linked) switches to variable and intermittent supply sources Reversibility increasingly difficult over time, given both the long life time of investment and the increasing share of the new energy sources, but theoretically possible Yes, due to learning by doing in the production of the new technologies and thereby cheaper renewable energy supply Energy transition has high policy relevance (e.g. GDP and welfare implications of this switch for the case of Photo-Voltaic) Drop in financial rating of southern member states [PWA] §5.3 Yes: Uncertainty about climate change impacts may impact financial ratings, which has significant impact on national economies Yes: at a certain point, the financial rating is suddenly lowered Yes: but temporal No: can be reversed Yes: rating reduction negatively impacts economy which again could reduce financial rating Large concern for Southern EU Member states Unwillingness to invest in areas exposed to higher risks or high cost of capital (higher risk premium required) [PWA] §5.3 Depends: Gradual shift of IFIs and FDI towards less risky projects, or increasing cost of capital for some projects – the latter might be more difficult to reverse Depends: Unwillingness to invest is more likely to fluctuate over time due to a wider range of factors determining the attractiveness of investments. Cost of capital might increase more suddenly – perhaps after a series of close extreme events. Yes: Need to find alternative sources of finances. Debt financing carries risks (see above) Can be reversed when the hazard decreases in a certain area, but this seems to be unlikely Yes: increased cost of capital may in turn reduce the capacity to adapt which increases vulnerability Large concern for certain vulnerable regions

Maybe. Reactive retreat could be caused by single events (floods), but also by a sequence of events. Yes. Reactive retreat occurs on much faster pace than proactive retreat as it react to a certain event. Yes. See above. Even more probably then in the proactive case. But still possible. (Example: New Orleans – pump the water out, rebuild dikes, rebuild city). However, the new state is different from the old one. No. Direct cost (migration cost). The green investments become the mainstream investments More-or-less: the increased initiatives and requirements for sustainable finance will accelerate a transition Yes: at some point this will go fast Structurally there will be much less investment in fossil fuelled development Probably no way back Major impact on mitigation and adaptation Renewable energy becomes more attractive Yes, financial viability is a tipping Yes, with tipping point investment Yes, energy system (and sectors linked) switches Reversibility increasingly difficult Yes, due to learning by doing in the Energy transition has high policy Necessary requirements Optional requirements Focus of COACCH Examples\criteria C1. Small cause large effect (non- linear) C2. Rapid change C3. Structural reconfiguration C4. Irreversibility C5. System feedbacks Policy relevance Renewable energy becomes more attractive investment than fossil fuels [GRAZ] §5.8 Yes, financial viability is a tipping point – policies on top of current cost decline of renewables can move them there Yes, with tipping point investment redirected to new energy source capacities Yes, energy system (and sectors linked) switches to variable and intermittent supply sources Reversibility increasingly difficult over time, given both the long life time of investment and the increasing share of the new energy sources, but theoretically possible Yes, due to learning by doing in the production of the new technologies and thereby cheaper renewable energy supply Energy transition has high policy relevance (e.g. GDP and welfare implications of this switch for the case of Photo-Voltaic) Drop in financial rating of southern member states [PWA] §5.3 Yes: Uncertainty about climate change impacts may impact financial ratings, which has significant impact on national economies Yes: at a certain point, the financial rating is suddenly lowered Yes: but temporal No: can be reversed Yes: rating reduction negatively impacts economy which again could reduce financial rating Large concern for Southern EU Member states Unwillingness to invest in areas exposed to higher risks or high cost of capital (higher risk premium required) [PWA] §5.3 Depends: Gradual shift of IFIs and FDI towards less risky projects, or increasing cost of capital for some projects – the latter might be more difficult to reverse Depends: Unwillingness to invest is more likely to fluctuate over time due to a wider range of factors determining the attractiveness of investments. Cost of capital might increase more suddenly – perhaps after a series of close extreme events. Yes: Need to find alternative sources of finances. Debt financing carries risks (see above) Can be reversed when the hazard decreases in a certain area, but this seems to be unlikely Yes: increased cost of capital may in turn reduce the capacity to adapt which increases vulnerability Large concern for certain vulnerable regions