"In short, the solutions he advocates are the same ones pushed by just about everyone in the climate debate: a mix of adaptation and mitigation."

If you really believe that, your readers would be well served if you spent a little more time on the the "adaptation" side of the ledger yourself. I see lots of advocacy of mitigation in your work, but adaptation not so much.

Actions speak louder than words.

As I understand it, I am not obliged to blog about anything but what interests me, and as it happens, most of that clusters around the policy, politics, and technology of mitigation.

It's fair to say that most green commentators focus most of their attention on mitigation and that support for adaptation is notional but not particularly robust. However, that insight is relatively banal, certainly not "heretical," and not worthy of dozens of feature articles in the popular press.

You are certainly right that the blog as a whole could use more material focused on adaptation. If you know of someone hankering to blog about it, please put us in touch. I mean that sincerely.

grist.org

How about when the Soviets put most of their factories on trucks when the Germans were invading during World War II, and moved them deep into Russia?  So, we build huge trucks, and when the seas rise or the lands parch, we move the cities! Or what about buildings on wheels? (yeah, I know the Dutch have some buildings that can float).

Maybe adaptation isn't discussed much because it would be an order of magnitude more expensive than the allegedly too costly efforts to mitigate global warming.

the issue of adaptation gets mixed in with sustainable development. I mean, there are relatively cheap things the world could do now to vastly reduce the harm of disease and severe weather, particularly in the third world. Climate change is going to make those things worse, but they're plenty bad now. In a sense what we'd be doing is "adapting" to our present world, to which we are far from optimized.

So adaptation quickly gets into issues of international aid, disease prevention, urban resiliency, etc. Those things are connected to climate change, and are part of the case for addressing climate change, but are issues in their own right, requiring expertise that I certainly do not have.

grist.org

David -

The problem is that it's not just you. While lots of folks give lip service, as you did, to the importance of both adaptation and mitigation, essentially the entire discussion revolves around mitigation, and is permeated by a fear that any discussion of adaptation simply provides cover for the bad guys.

One of the few exceptions to this is Roger, whose discussion of adaptation is robust, rather than merely notional. This is why his views are, in fact, newsworthy, Zarembo's mangling notwithstanding. He's genuinely a rare case in accepting the importance of mitigation but also pushing adaptation hard.

Maybe you should invite Roger to blog here.

...gets linked up with mitigating climate change?  Sorry if I haven't followed this debate until now, as to why this Pielke fellow is getting press, but I seem to remember that debate with Chrichton et al at the 92nd street Y in NYC, where Chricton was making it seem like mitigating global warming was going to harm the poor.

This is similar to pitting light rail vs. buses, or bridge repair vs. trains, or social security vs. medicare, or an innumerable number of programs that are starved for money; act as if a static pot of money is available for a bunch of "do-good" projects, then sit back and watch while all the "do-gooders" claw and scratch each other up fighting for a small piece of the small pie.

As Athanasiou and you have pointed out, "eco-equity" is certainly an important issue, and if handled correctly shows how we can mitigate global warming while at the same time mitigating world poverty.  But pairing the two together, as if there is a zero-sum game here, is the anti-progressive route.

The argument seems to be, one or the other.  There is no reason not to do both.  As many on this site have argued (and I have argued as well in many of my posts), transforming society in order to cut carbon emissions to a very low level could easily have a net positive effect on the global economy, even in developing countries.

Thanks to Roger and friends who have always showcased adaptation and mumbled about mitigation (at best) we are committed to a large adaptation.  

We are going to pay procrastination penalties

J. Willard Rabett sent Eli a set of laws to guide climate change policy makers whenever they mention Roger Jr.

Adaptation responds to current losses.
Mitigation responds to future losses
Adaptation plus future costs is more expensive than mitigation,
Adaptation without mitigation drives procrastination penalties to infinity.

J. Willard points out the similarity with the laws of thermodynamics, you can't win, you can't break even, things will get worse before they get better and who says they will get better.

There is no reason not to do both now, indeed there is no way we could avoid it, but ask yourself was the same thing true ten and twenty years ago when the Nordhaus', Nierenbergs and friends were distorting what we knew (not that they have stopped, well, Nierenberg did, but that was unavoidable).

Another reason why adaptation may not get much discussion is that it will happen, whether we talk about it or not.  It's safe to say that a global society 50, 100, 1000 etc. years from now will be "adapted."  The question will come down to (as it always has), who wins and who loses?

As I responded to Eli over at Fleck's, the good Rabbett is deploying a straw man. None of the principles in this argument are arguing in favor of adaptation at the expense of mitigation. That's a straw man.

But the willful deployment of this argument over and over again has resulted in a quite demonstrable abandonment of adaptation on the part of what David calls "green commentators". It takes two forms - intellectually dishonest lip service (the David Roberts approach, in which one pretends to believe in it, then launches an attack every time anyone brings up its importance) or outright hostility, the approach of the more intellectually honest commentators.

You accuse me of intellectual dishonesty because I point out that Roger is prominently featured in an article that is explicitly presented as making the argument you call a straw man. As far as I know he has not requested a correction. The story's now been reprinted in the Boston Globe without even the wee clarification at the bottom of the LAT piece. This is not the first time that Roger has been tragically misrepresented on this score.

I don't attack people who say adaptation is important. I call bullshit when people say it's more important than mitigation, or a substitute for mitigation. If Roger didn't keep, um, accidentally doing that, I'd probably quit calling BS on him.

grist.org

David -

My allegation of intellectual dishonesty has nothing to do with Roger. It has to do with your claim that you really do think adaptation is important, but that you are unwilling or unable to write about it, and have you have repeatedly criticized those who bring the issue up.

As I said, actions speak louder than words.

Alan Zarembo who wrote the article is coming reallllll close to arguing that only adaptation is gonna happen.  He who will not be named objected to how he was quoted, but if you read the comments over at his place where Ethon is knawing at the liver, came reallllllll close to saying that since mitigation can do nothing for more than 50 years, well adaptation is all there is for those of us, who in that run will be dead, and Hans v. Storch also, somehow, some way thought that he was misquoted with purpose by Zarembo.

that's pretty good action in my book.