The other issue that's come up in Pielke-Roberts Mild Disagreement '06 is the relative importance of mitigation vs. adaptation, climate-change wise. A couple of issues need to be distinguished here.
First, the substance: According to Roger, the "Kyoto Protocol, as is the FCCC under which it was negotiated, is in fact strongly biased against adaptation." It frames money spent on adaptation as money directly drained from mitigation (which it says would make adaptation unnecessary). I'm no expert on the FCCC, but this jibes with what I've read, and I agree with Roger that it's not a smart way of framing things.
Now, I could be wrong about this, but I think Roger agrees that there's a limited pot of money; he thinks that adaptation should get more of it and mitigation less. This is, as far as I can tell, what a "non-skeptic heretic" believes. There are several reasons one could believe this: perhaps because global warming won't be as bad as people say it will; perhaps because mitigation would be too expensive. Maybe Roger can clarify.
Now, I'm probably being idealistic, but it seems to me that many adaptation strategies are also mitigation strategies (or if you prefer, vice versa). To take an example, having a more diverse set of electricity sources, decentralized and site-situated, hooked up to a smart grid, would both reduce GHG emissions and make the power grid less vulnerable to climatic disruptions. Another example: structures built based on the principles of "passive survivability" are designed to be livable even during severe climate events that cause blackouts, etc.; they also emit far fewer GHGs.
Indeed, not to get all philosophical, but it seems to me open systems are in almost every case more secure and resilient than closed systems. Decentralization is more resilient than centralization. Diversity is more resilient than monoculture.
Much of what I advocate as an environmentalist has to do with the U.S. reversing its post-war monoculturizing -- that goes for energy, architecture, agriculture, you name it. Doing so serves the dual purposes of climate-change mitigation and adaptation. They are not as much in conflict as both the FCCC and Roger seem to think, IMO.
Now, the politics: Roger quotes me ranting against adaptation, and concludes I'm "squarely against it." Not so. Let me clarify.
There are efforts afoot on the corporatist wing of the right to persuade the public that global warming's effects won't be all that bad -- that cutting CO2 substantially would cause far worse effects. They say we should continue economic expansion (which they fallaciously equate with emitting GHGs) and simply adapt to the changes global warming brings. (Many of them believe that humans are not actually contributing to climate change, but that scientifically discredited argument is becoming less publicly acceptable, so they're eliding the point.)
Should they succeed in building consensus around that position, it would be disastrous. We would keep accelerating global warming, the climate would keep changing, we would keep adapting, and eventually we would bankrupt and exhaust ourselves.
The public needs to accept the fact the global warming is happening, that it's bad, and that we need to stop accelerating it. Once that consensus is solid, I wouldn't mind spending money preparing for the changes that are already inevitable. In fact, it would be crazy not to. Humans all over the globe are increasingly vulnerable to climate, period -- not just the extra wackiness global warming throws in the mix. That problem, like global poverty, disease, etc. needs to be addressed through international cooperation. I don't think anyone would genuinely object to that.
But until a robust will to action on global warming exists, we must battle to create it. Yes, Kyoto has become something of a fetish in some circles. Yes, some folks preaching for action on climate change have adopted a quasi-religious fervor and dogmatism. And yes, that can be irksome. But is it really the biggest problem we face? Is chipping away at that orthodoxy really where Roger wants to direct his energy? The gauche over-enthusiasm of climate-change advocates seems rather trivial compared to America's almost complete paralysis in the face the problem.
Global climate pact may hinge on EU summit
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
If REDD can’t save this….
Comments
View as Flat
biggie green Posted 12:34 pm
30 May 2006
Good work, taking up the issue of adaptation vs. mitigation. Other environmental opinion leaders should follow your fervency, as well as your understanding that adaptation and mitigation strategies overlap, thus their proponents cannot rightly polarize themselves.
Some will try, of course. "There are efforts afoot on the corporatist wing of the right to persuade the public that global warming's effects won't be all that bad -- that cutting CO2 substantially would cause far worse effects." Such efforts are the future of climate skepticism. They have already a proven prototype: "dire," "drastic" and "draconian" reverberate constantly off of Kyoto's compartment in the echo chamber.
I'm a touch disappointed that your post above lacks any data to support immediate, strong mitigation (nor does your comment to Pielke's post, save for your imaginative +100,000:1 ratio of environmental refugees to arable land). Even thoughtless diatribes against Kyoto often reference the $400 billion and 5 million jobs that the Hot Air and Hyperbole Institute (HAHI) reckons the protocol would have cost our great and stubborn nation.
With reason enjoying a rare moment in the sun, thanks to Al Gore and the blessed-though-excessively-endowed finitude of human credulity, it is opportune for mitigation proponents to explain and repeat, repeat, repeat the statistical nuggets that could become conventional wisdom, e.g. insurers' need to nearly double their coffers in order to cover anticipated weather events. When the adaptation vs. mitigation issue inherits its place at the center of global-warming debate, likely presented in he-said, she-said style, mitigation proponents will need some familiar, journalist-friendly numbers on their side to counteract the HAHI's veiled support of the status quo.
I hope you stick with this issue. It needs vision.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:17 pm
30 May 2006
What is the present net worth of 25 years of imported oil? It is hard to imagine the cost of oil in 25 years, or the value of the dollar.
Permalink
markbahner Posted 2:10 pm
02 Jun 2006
You mean they write things like, "There are efforts afoot on the corporatist wing of the right to persuade the public that global warming's effects won't be all that bad -- that cutting CO2 substantially would cause far worse effects."
And, "Should they succeed in building consensus around that position, it would be disastrous. We would keep accelerating global warming, the climate would keep changing, we would keep adapting, and eventually we would bankrupt and exhaust ourselves"?
Mark Bahner
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:30 pm
03 Jun 2006
Some ideas for these folks, to sort of help them along.
1) A corporate ad campaign suggesting that childhood asthma is just a natural part of life (and not caused by pollution).
2) Pictures of pollution in other places shown next to beautiful American scenes (just tell yourself this "bad" weather will clear up in not time).
3) Campaigns blaming the problem on the poor in India, China and the rest of the developing world (really, why should WE change when it's their fault).
4) Campaigns suggesting that genetic research will allow us to select for genes in our children that will better let them breathe exhaust.
5) The food industry can talk about the exciting "new foods" we will soon be adding to our gourmet pallets ("pine bark", the flavor of the year.)
6) Increases in government spending to ward off all those tropical diseases headed our way.
7) A new fence along our southern border to be ready when things get really "hot" down there.
8) Stories showing the benefits of looking at Canada as part of our "natural domain" (for when things start to get hot here).
Finally, ad campaigns with sexy models suggesting that "real men/women" adapt, they don't compromise!!
Why change reality, when all we need to do, really, is modify the message a bit.
patrick
Permalink