I've been reporting for 35 years on the dual tracks needed bo build a more sustainable human relationship with climate. I worry when folks fall into an either/or debate.
Thanks for your comments, Andy, I always appreciate your perspective. I agree 100% that adaptation is something we need to be doing and I welcome people honestly talking about adaptation. But my post was about the "we'll adapt" crowd who is not honest — they're using it as a delaying tactic and as a way to advance other political objectives, such as punishing "other" groups (poor, brown, etc.). I would be happy to come on your podcast to talk more about this.
Wise words. "Climate hazards" will increase as populations grow, even if "Climate change" wasn't a thing. More people, mostly the poorest of the poor are going to be in harm's way. Why otherwise reasonable people deny this fact is a mystery.
As Andrew notes, his target is those who propose "we'll adapt" as the simple (and implicitly adequate) response to climate disruption. He accurately presents the case for why that claim is false. That is not an argument against taking action now to reduce the harms people are suffering from today's climate extremes and from those in the pipeline.
I also believe that the word "adapt" is itself problematic and should be avoided. It connotes that there are available steps we can take that produce a world that is no more risky than the one with the climate we had say, 50 years ago. The word also implies that the climate threat is simply a change from State A to a new steady-state B--all we have to do is specify the parameters of the new steady-state and then engineer our systems to eliminate risks with that new steady-state. Of course, we are in no way on a path to some well-defined new steady state. We absolutely do need to both mitigate emissions and take protective action to reduce present and future threats. The latter is in no way a substitute for the former and without much more of the former, the latter actions will be far less effective in reducing risks.
Thanks for your comments, Andy, I always appreciate your perspective. I agree 100% that adaptation is something we need to be doing and I welcome people honestly talking about adaptation. But my post was about the "we'll adapt" crowd who is not honest — they're using it as a delaying tactic and as a way to advance other political objectives, such as punishing "other" groups (poor, brown, etc.). I would be happy to come on your podcast to talk more about this.
Let's set that up for sure! Mid October on can find a day/time that works for both.
Wise words. "Climate hazards" will increase as populations grow, even if "Climate change" wasn't a thing. More people, mostly the poorest of the poor are going to be in harm's way. Why otherwise reasonable people deny this fact is a mystery.
As Andrew notes, his target is those who propose "we'll adapt" as the simple (and implicitly adequate) response to climate disruption. He accurately presents the case for why that claim is false. That is not an argument against taking action now to reduce the harms people are suffering from today's climate extremes and from those in the pipeline.
I also believe that the word "adapt" is itself problematic and should be avoided. It connotes that there are available steps we can take that produce a world that is no more risky than the one with the climate we had say, 50 years ago. The word also implies that the climate threat is simply a change from State A to a new steady-state B--all we have to do is specify the parameters of the new steady-state and then engineer our systems to eliminate risks with that new steady-state. Of course, we are in no way on a path to some well-defined new steady state. We absolutely do need to both mitigate emissions and take protective action to reduce present and future threats. The latter is in no way a substitute for the former and without much more of the former, the latter actions will be far less effective in reducing risks.