Thad Miller’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Posts on adaptation

  Dave,

  I think this makes the previous discussion on adaptation all the more relevant -- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/6/115722/7634. The people who are most vulnerable today to the impacts discussed in the IPCC WGII will not benefit from mitigation.

  Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

  On Grim posted 2 years, 8 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  mutual investment

  ltlf653,

  I definitely view them as mutually reinforcing. In addition to your ideas about renewables, etc, I am working through the following economic logic: adaptation presents a large fixed cost investment. This investment is in jeopordy if you continue to emit GHGs; therefore, you'd seek to protect your investment and reduce GHG emissions. Unfortunately, there has not been any economic work done on this (to my knowledge), but it seems like the logic may hold.

  Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

  On Come gaze at your navel for a while posted 2 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dave,

  I do agree with you. My point is just that mitigation has been the primary focus of society's response thus far and adaptation has been viewed as a cop-out or fatalistic. I believe that view is mistaken as there are millions (perhaps not in the US, but certainly elsewhere) that are extremely vulnerable to weather and climate right now. Just as we have a responsibility to future generations to reduce GHG emissions and the impacts of climate change, we have a responsibility to the current (and future) generation to decrease vulnerability to climate change -- the impacts of which we are responsible for.

  Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

  On Come gaze at your navel for a while posted 2 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Read my mind

  David,

  Thanks for the post. I'm actually working on a paper on the practical and moral necessity of adaptation (I am not setting it up as either/or).

  Two quick points. First, mitigation is intrinsically altuistic assuming we (a) actually reduce enough to make any difference and (b) we know what happens if we reduce by x amount (in other words, reducing to 1990 levels doesn't mean 1990 climate -- no one knows what it means). Second, I would argue that a continued sole focus on mitigation may in fact be intergenerationally inequitable; i.e. without adaptation we will be under taking action with benefits that we will only see far in the future (if at all), while those vulnerability to climate variability today remain so with the added impacts of climate change.

  Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

  On Come gaze at your navel for a while posted 2 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Adaptation

  While I applaud Andrew for mentioning adaptation as point #5, there is a glaring lack of discussion about it in subsequent posts -- and in the overall debate over our response to climate change.  While mitigation in the form of carbon taxes or cap-and-trade obviously warrants serious discussion, so to does adaptation.  To offer it no or just cursory consideration is, I believe, an entirely Western/developed world-centric stance.  

  Briefly, adaptation's place in the debate over our response needs to be elevated to the same level as mitigation for the following reasons.  First, it seems that we are resigned to see potentially large impacts from climate change under even the most drastic emissions reductions scenarios.  Therefore, adaptation is not only desirable but absolutely necessary.  Second, to ask developing countries such as India to cut emissions (and likely energy use) while attempting to meet the Millennium Development Goals (and other poverty reduction programs) is unconscionable and impractical.  Third, adaptation makes sense across a wide range of scenarios; that is, even if certain impacts of climate change never end up happening, adaptation measures still make sense and contribute to other societal goals such as sustainable development and vulnerability reduction. Finally, and we can debate about this, adaptation requires action and local and regional levels which may help bring home some of the impacts of climate change.  In so doing, this may also help generate additional investments in fighting climate change -- namely, mitigation.

  I implore you to response to this and get the debate over adaptation started. It is vital.

  Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

  On Debate shifting post-IPCC report posted 2 years, 8 months ago 29 Responses