<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Pielke labels adaptation what is actually mitigation]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by EarthFire08 http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/ Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:27:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/1 Let's get real (real accurate, that is)

Merriam Webster defines a heretic as "1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth or 2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist."  

"Global climatic disruption" -- borrowing from John Holdren's more apt description of climate change -- is neither religion, belief, nor doctrine. It has this in common with heart disease, cancer, and gravity.  Was James Hansen a conformist when he testified in 1988 that global warming had arrived? Are Nobel Prize winning IPCC scientists conformists? (No one I've met believes this.)

"Adaptation," like global warming, is also a misleading misnomer:  starving children "adapt" to hunger with inflated bellies and emaciated arms and legs; cancer patients adapt to their disease with suffering and survival or death; and the dinosaurs adapted (some say poorly) to a changing climate with extinction.  Is premature death an effective (and morally acceptable) adaptation strategy?  No humans?  No problem!  Sea level rise?  Massive droughts, floods, storm surges?  To  plagiarize (tastelessly)... bring 'em on!      

The LA Times article was a confusing and confounding journey into semantics, presenting (an apparently misleading) "either/or" frame when in fact none really exists -- we all know that it's gotta be "and/and" with extra doses of each, of course setting priorities along the way, when it comes to avoiding the catastrophes we can't manage (mitigation), and managing the impacts we can't avoid (adaptation).  Maybe our good friends Joe Romm and David Roberts should host a renaming contest for "adaptation."  "Suffering" is a good start.  In my view, this thread of discourse is at level 101 arithmetic when we need to be in advanced calculus, or at least basic geometry.  I am reminded of a cutting remark made by Katrina hero Russel Honore' to the press in the aftermath of hurricane Rita:  "Don't get stuck on stupid."  That's good advice for all of us.  

Anne

]]> Let's get real (real accurate, that is)

Merriam Webster defines a heretic as "1: a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth or 2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist."  

"Global climatic disruption" -- borrowing from John Holdren's more apt description of climate change -- is neither religion, belief, nor doctrine. It has this in common with heart disease, cancer, and gravity.  Was James Hansen a conformist when he testified in 1988 that global warming had arrived? Are Nobel Prize winning IPCC scientists conformists? (No one I've met believes this.)

"Adaptation," like global warming, is also a misleading misnomer:  starving children "adapt" to hunger with inflated bellies and emaciated arms and legs; cancer patients adapt to their disease with suffering and survival or death; and the dinosaurs adapted (some say poorly) to a changing climate with extinction.  Is premature death an effective (and morally acceptable) adaptation strategy?  No humans?  No problem!  Sea level rise?  Massive droughts, floods, storm surges?  To  plagiarize (tastelessly)... bring 'em on!      

The LA Times article was a confusing and confounding journey into semantics, presenting (an apparently misleading) "either/or" frame when in fact none really exists -- we all know that it's gotta be "and/and" with extra doses of each, of course setting priorities along the way, when it comes to avoiding the catastrophes we can't manage (mitigation), and managing the impacts we can't avoid (adaptation).  Maybe our good friends Joe Romm and David Roberts should host a renaming contest for "adaptation."  "Suffering" is a good start.  In my view, this thread of discourse is at level 101 arithmetic when we need to be in advanced calculus, or at least basic geometry.  I am reminded of a cutting remark made by Katrina hero Russel Honore' to the press in the aftermath of hurricane Rita:  "Don't get stuck on stupid."  That's good advice for all of us.  

Anne

]]> Comment #2 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/ Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:52:36 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/2 It's simple

One simple, easy to picture, factual presentation would explain why adaptation is worse than useless.

Ice melting.  Ice on the polar caps and glaciers.

The arctic maybe open water as soon as this summer.  That huge ice shelf in antarctica may fall at anytime.  It was supposed to take another decade at least?

And the montain glaciers feeding water to 100s of millions of people.  100s of millions of people desperate for water and food.  Fighting to save one's own life is one thing.  Fighting to save one's children is quite different.

That's why mother bears with cubs are to be avoided.  100s of millions fighting like that?

It might not be the end of the world, but it will surely seem like it. Adaptation?

How would that work in the face of this scale of disaster?  Major cities on coastlines all flooding and 100s of millions of refugees.

 

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> It's simple

One simple, easy to picture, factual presentation would explain why adaptation is worse than useless.

Ice melting.  Ice on the polar caps and glaciers.

The arctic maybe open water as soon as this summer.  That huge ice shelf in antarctica may fall at anytime.  It was supposed to take another decade at least?

And the montain glaciers feeding water to 100s of millions of people.  100s of millions of people desperate for water and food.  Fighting to save one's own life is one thing.  Fighting to save one's children is quite different.

That's why mother bears with cubs are to be avoided.  100s of millions fighting like that?

It might not be the end of the world, but it will surely seem like it. Adaptation?

How would that work in the face of this scale of disaster?  Major cities on coastlines all flooding and 100s of millions of refugees.

 

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

]]> Comment #3 by StormwaterAdvocate http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/ Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:12:08 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/3 Adaptation

I agree with Joseph's deconstruction of the semantic tangle. However, adaptation in the context of climate change is more complex than described in the posting. As Joseph shows in the heart attack analogy, if you knew you were likely to have a heart attack in the future and you changed you lifestyle to avoid having one, that is mitigation. However, if you make changes assuming that it's going happen, such as installing a wheelchair ramp to your front door, that's adaptation. Likewise, there are things to be done in between the spectrum of mitigation and armageddon. Urban infrastructure is one place to start. See this article for a detailed discussion of some of the challenges and possibilities for adapting urban infrastructure that invite widespread participation:
http://www.stormh2o.com/sw_0707_stormwater.html


]]> Adaptation

I agree with Joseph's deconstruction of the semantic tangle. However, adaptation in the context of climate change is more complex than described in the posting. As Joseph shows in the heart attack analogy, if you knew you were likely to have a heart attack in the future and you changed you lifestyle to avoid having one, that is mitigation. However, if you make changes assuming that it's going happen, such as installing a wheelchair ramp to your front door, that's adaptation. Likewise, there are things to be done in between the spectrum of mitigation and armageddon. Urban infrastructure is one place to start. See this article for a detailed discussion of some of the challenges and possibilities for adapting urban infrastructure that invite widespread participation:
http://www.stormh2o.com/sw_0707_stormwater.html


]]> Comment #4 by turanga leela http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/ Mon, 12 May 2008 07:24:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-adaptation-trap-and-the-nonskeptical-delayers-like-roger-pielke-part-1/4 450 ppm

co2 in the atmosphere. we are there already. we will have to mitigate AND adapt. catastrophes are already occurring close to the equator and in the arctic. it's not so much that rich countries need to adapt--we'll survive pretty well up to the max, around 600 ppm, then the floods, fires, and droughts throughout the midwestern US will make us sit up and take notice. but by then hundreds of millions of the poorest, most vulnerable people on the planet, most of them children, will be dead. point being, the world can level off at 450 if the developed nations act now. we absolutely have to. but we also have to help the people who are already dying from floods, droughts, fires, and loss of traditional ways of life around the world, because it's our fault they're suffering.

]]> 450 ppm

co2 in the atmosphere. we are there already. we will have to mitigate AND adapt. catastrophes are already occurring close to the equator and in the arctic. it's not so much that rich countries need to adapt--we'll survive pretty well up to the max, around 600 ppm, then the floods, fires, and droughts throughout the midwestern US will make us sit up and take notice. but by then hundreds of millions of the poorest, most vulnerable people on the planet, most of them children, will be dead. point being, the world can level off at 450 if the developed nations act now. we absolutely have to. but we also have to help the people who are already dying from floods, droughts, fires, and loss of traditional ways of life around the world, because it's our fault they're suffering.

]]>