Al Gore on Adaptation
February 23rd, 2007Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
From the International Herald Tribune,, Al Gore reiterates that despite many efforts to characterize adaptation and mitigation as complementary, he prefers to persist in viewing them as competing:
Trying to prevent global warming is certainly worthwhile, said Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado.
But he said capable people are not adequately putting their minds to the challenge of adapting to climate change, which is inevitable in coming decades because of continuing emissions and because of the damage done already.
“If all we do is try to mitigate we’re going to miss a big part of the challenge,” Pielke said.
The world’s leaders also need to address other problems that are likely to be aggravated by global warming, such as tropical diseases, drinking water supply and increasing storm vulnerability, Pielke and several colleagues argued in the scientific journal Nature.
Many global warming activists are suspicious of such recommendations. They feel that too much reliance on adaptation will lull the world into a false sense of security, decreasing the motivation to reduce greenhouse gases.
“We really have to focus on prevention,” Al Gore said on Tuesday during a question-and-answer session at Columbia University in New York City.
He warned that if we fail to avert the worst of global warming, the dire environmental consequences will overwhelm any adaptive measures.
We’ve had a number of prominent people react in private to our recent article on adaptation in Nature (PDF) by suggesting that we really should have emphasized mitigation instead.
I wonder how many criticisms of Mr. Gore’s exclusive focus on “prevention” (sorry, prevention is not in the cards, ask the IPCC) we will hear about. My guess is not more than one — and you’re looking at it. Lots of inconvenient truths to go around, it seems.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Interesting (and always disappointing) to see how an intelligent person like Gore can be so dogmatic… and/or wrong.
It can’t be out of sheer ignorance: every layperson (as I) interested in climate change knows full well that (if GW there really is), the inertia of the system will force us to adapt, whatever we do to curb emissions. How could Gore ignore or sidestep this fact?
I certainly hope that you’ll get the chance to ask him directly.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
This blog would be better if posts like this actually dealt with the serious questions.
Years ago, they told us we would be flying to work in my own personal aircraft and vacationing on the moon.
Techno optimism can quickly turn into escapism. Just look at the way the present technology of the electric car was dumped for the distant promises of hydrogen fuel. We shouldn’t dump prevention for the false comfort of techno-optimistic dreams.
It’s human nature to deal with problems such as climate change with dreams of future progress– the same way that a family will charge up its credit card in hopes of future prosperity that may or may not materialize.
So yes, I would say that prevention does compete with technical fixes. The best laid plans of mice and men, etc.
This post completely ignores this kind of question, and leads me not to take the person who wrote it seriously.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
“They feel that too much reliance on adaptation will lull the world into a false sense of security, decreasing the motivation to reduce greenhouse gases.”
So, then it was a good thing that levees protecting New Orleans weren’t up to the standards required. All the video footage of ensuing devastation will prevent us from being lulled into a false sense of security?
Hey, I have another idea too. You know how our laws require seat belts and airbags? Those just lull maniacal drivers into a false sense of security because they think they can go wizzing along at 80 mph and their air bag will save them. Let’s get rid of those laws so we can scare people into driving more cautiously.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 am
JJWfromME- Thanks for your comments. I’ll bite … what are “the serious questions”?
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 am
JJWFromME said: “Just look at the way the present technology of the electric car was dumped for the distant promises of hydrogen fuel.”
What are you talking about? Efforts to develop electric cars are ongoing and include efforts to develop plug-in hybrids. Some non-plugin hybrid electrics have hit the market.
You can read more here:
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2006/ES061201.html
The article begins:
“Argonne to lead DOE’s effort to evaluate plug-in hybrid technology
ARGONNE, Ill. (Dec. 1. 2006) — Argonne National Laboratory has been designated by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies as the lead national laboratory for the simulation, validation and laboratory evaluation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and the advanced technologies required for these vehicles.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) technology is part of the president’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which emphasizes the development of technologies that can significantly reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.
….”
Of course, if you, JJWFromME, think this research is important, you can write your congressman, express your support and request increased funding.
February 23rd, 2007 at 9:47 am
The serious question is why would Al Gore would advocate for prevention and not adaptation.
Maybe it’s because prevention needs advocacy, and adaptation probably will have plenty of advocates and won’t need the help. It’s obvious that there are serious vested interests involved.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
JJWFromME- Thanks, I am glad I asked. We’ve discussed these questions at some length here. If you are really interested in my views on adaptation and mitigation then you’ll find them laid out in the following:
Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2000. Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly, 286(1), 55-64.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-69-2000.18.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2005. Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 548-561.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R.A., Prins, G., Rayner, S. and Sarewitz, D., 2007. Climate change 2007: Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature, 7 February.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2506-2007.11.pdf
And there is more where those came from if you’d like . . .
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 am
I haven’t been in on the discussions on this blog.
But in the context of this post, my point is that it’s not hard to figure out why Al Gore would advocate prevention. Why not give him at least credit for that view instead of heaping scorn? You can always say why you disagree. I find it strange how snide this post sounds. The guy is trying to help, and having some success at giving it some attention, I might add–even if he disagrees with you on some policy points. So I find the tone of your post strange.
And you wonder why your Wikipedia article sounds the way it does. I thought David Roberts might have been a little uncharitable before. But now, I think I’m starting to overcome my worries about my supposed “cognitive miserliness.”
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
JJWfromME- Thanks. I take it then that you not interested in actually looking at my views posted over the past 3 years on this blog about adaptation, and Mr. Gore (occasionally) … or my peer reviewed papers.
Mr. Gore’s views on adaptation are decidedly not helpful. In fact they are an obstacle to progress on the issue, and I have no problem saying so. I still think he’ll be elected president however;-)
Thanks again for your participation . . .
February 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 am
Well, life is limited. You only have enough time in the day to dedicate your cognitive resources to so many things (on a certain level, everyone has to be a “cognitive miser” about some things. You can’t pay equal attention to every bit of information that crosses your path).
But I do appreciate the opportunity to exchange views here, Dr. Pielke.
February 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Roger, you have misrepresented what Gore said mere inches away from your own quoted material.
“prevention is not in the cards, ask the IPCC”
you say in order to disparage Al Gore’s efforts in this issue. Yet one only has to look up a paragraph and see the context in which your single scare-quoted word appeared:
“‘We really have to focus on prevention,’ Al Gore said on Tuesday during a question-and-answer session at Columbia University in New York City.
He warned that if we fail to avert the worst of global warming, the dire environmental consequences will overwhelm any adaptive measures”
What the IPCC says is that some degree of future warming is inevitable due to thermal inertia of the climate system and the radiative imbalance that already exists. There is absolutely no contradiction between this statement and the hope that the worst effects of more extreme global warming can be avoided.
Is there something else that you meant by “ask the IPCC”?
I don’t disagree that adaptation will be needed. But adaptation does not need advocation specific to the climate policy debate because the need for water, food and secure shelter is its own advocate. Those concerned with agricultural production, water infrastructure and storm damage will and can only respond to changing conditions or predictions of changes to come.
This brings up another reason that adaptation rightly takes a back seat in discussion of climate change policy, and that is that adaptation is very localized and thus far local, even regional, predictions are not yet well provided for by CGM’s. Mitigation efforts are a matter of global cooperation with global consequences.
CO2 produced in a single town adds to the global atmospheric concentrations. The loss of a particular glacier critical to a town’s water supply effects only that town. Unless one is proposing some kind of global compensation fund to aid in climate change adaptation I fail to see how discussions of ways that that town could adapt to losing its water source are relevant to climate policy discussions.
February 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Coby- Thanks.
What does Mr. Gore mean by “the worst of global warming”? I don’t know because he hasn’t said. Do you know? If he thinks that is above 450 ppm, then prevention is not in the cards. If he thinks it is 550 ppm then prevention is very likely not in the cards . . .
This comment is simply bizarre (sorry, but it is):
“. . . the need for water, food and secure shelter is its own advocate.”
Right. All those people lacking clean water, food, and shelter around the world are doing great letting their misery speak for itself. They don’t need any further advocates, certainly not among us rich world folks.
Your entire comment speaks volumes about the nature of the climate debate –
“I fail to see how discussions of ways that that town could adapt to losing its water source are relevant to climate policy discussions.”
Amazing!
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I would think that if we are expecting large numbers of people all over the world to lose water sources when many glaciers melt, then it might be useful to fund programs to develop more energy efficient desalination methods That way, we minimize the CO2 generated by when people take the steps required to adapt to climate change.
Or, of course we can decide that adaptation is a truly local issue and force local communities to rely on existing methods.
Examples of research that might be encouraged if we like the idea of taking proactive steps to adapt: http://www.hindu.com/seta/2005/01/13/stories/2005011300061500.htm
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
With all due respect, Roger, your repeated tactic of removing context so that you can ridicule a strawman is what speaks most about the nature of this debate. “I fail to see how discussions of ways that that town could adapt to losing its water source are relevant to climate policy discussions.” is only half of a single sentence and does not stand alone without losing essential logic.
I find your whole approach to what I said to be wilfully confused, it’s like you make a concerted effort to not understand.
As for your specific question about what Gore means by the worst of Global Warming, I think its general nature is obvious and it is not defined as a particular level of CO2 in the atmosphere. You are familiar with the IPCC reports and the ranges of temperature change projected in the future and the types of consequences they will likely bring. Al Gore probably believes in even worse consequences; there is little chance he thinks it will be less bad so exactly what he imagines is possible is irrelevant to my point about your misrepresentation in the OP. Your question surely can not be sincere, it is merely an attempt at distraction.
February 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Mitigation vs Prevention vs Al Gore: Has not the IPCC said that the existing CO2 in the atmosphere , when combined with the amount to be generated in the near future under even the most stringent restrictions, will still produce warming for a long time to come? Do I have that right? If so doesn’t that in and of itself point out the importance of mitigation? Doesn’t it also mean that going after CO2’s effects is a long term endeavor?
Well rather than just mitigate things while folks cook, I too think we should do something about prevention. Guess what, we can and we could see big results in a just a few decades. You folks over at RC know about Jim Hansen’s paper a few years ago when he said that we could have a major affect on warming by controlling the other GW gases particularly methane. Add to that all of the recent papers on how human caused land use also has a big affect on warming. Stir in soot, ozone and we have a lot of man made forcings that prevention can be applied to.
Hansen’s paper was not politically correct and that is the heart of this whole problem. Going after the other man-made forcings takes some real big time political work and the world has nothing but pantywaists in politics right now. It is so easy, just put a limit on CO2 and the problem is solved… thinking not required.
Yes mitigate! Yes go after CO2 for the long term! But if you really want to affect GW then pursue prevention measures on other forcings and feedbacks. Does Gore mention this? No, his self-serving, cute little film villified CO2 and nothing else. I believe he is promoting himself like thousands of other political types who have latched on to this issue.
When the politically correct loose influence and the real problem solvers come forth, then something will be done; and it will be done by being honest with people. In the meantime all we are going to hear is political hot air and I can assure that you will see no results for a very long time.
February 23rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Talking about 3rd world suffering in terms of “global warming” is ridiculous. This next century will see more 3rd world suffering than ever before, unless we gete population under control – even then, those at the base of Maslow’s pyramid really don’t care about what happens in 2010, let alone 2050.
But Gore could in fact do something about prevention. He could become President – of China and India. Unless he does that, all he’s doing is continuing to make money off the fear of the future.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Coby: Mitigation may cause harm to many peoples standards of living whereas adaptation is good regardless of whether future AGW hypotheses are correct or not. They are not mutually exclusive though. When politicians talk about how the poorest will suffer in the future due to AGW but advocate doing nothing to alleviate that suffering, they are not only being hypocritical, but they are obviously content for the current appalling poverty in the world to continue unabated well into this century. It is more typical environmentalist dogma – planet first, people second – that doesn’t help their case.
Tim Clear: As for population control, when someone mentions that I always wonder if they mean by deliberate extermination. Though in fact it’s quite clear that poverty and population are directly related. Health and well-being tends to decrease the population naturally. So adaptation wins again.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:22 am
Coby said: “The loss of a particular glacier critical to a town’s water supply effects only that town. Unless one is proposing some kind of global compensation fund to aid in climate change adaptation I fail to see how discussions of ways that that town could adapt to losing its water source are relevant to climate policy discussions.”
Coby, the claimed reason why global change is a huge world wide problem isn’t that it will lead to the loss of “a particular glacier”. It’s that it will lead loss to huge numbers of glaciers all around the world that results in the need for fresh water sources everywhere.
That means: supposedly world wide problem.
In that regard, it would seem prudent for a climate policy to focus on adaptation, which will specifically include the need to develop technologies to supply people with water. Funding more energy efficient desalination projects might fall under this. (Example projects: http://www.hindu.com/seta/2005/01/13/stories/2005011300061500.htm )
If we follow your argument that adaptation is not relevant to policy discussions, and we fail to do research to develop technologies that make it possible for people to adapt, then we leave it up to the individuals living in villages scattered across the world to figure out what to do on an emergency basis. Worse, the technologies that permit them to adapt will not exist.
If the predictions about glaciers are true, this will lead to suffering and, death and the impact will occur in many places on the globe. Adaptation should be part of climate policy.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:20 am
JJWFromMe demonstrates the biggest failure of the liberal world view when he rights:
“Why not give him at least credit for that view instead of heaping scorn? You can always say why you disagree. I find it strange how snide this post sounds. The guy is trying to help, and having some success at giving it some attention, I might add…”
JJWFromMe does not appear to be concerned about whether or not Al Gore’s proposals will actually solve any problems. The only thing that matters is that he is ‘trying to help’. It is considered a snide remark to point out that his noble intentions don’t address the problem, or may actually do more harm than good. It is another demonstration of symbolism over substance; good intentions over good results.
I would rather praise the individual who acts in their own self interest and produces wonderful benefits for society, than the person with altruistic intentions that screws everything up! In the end, results are all that should matter in policy decisions.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:40 am
JamesG -
I meant population control in terms of birth control – but you have a point, some are thinking in terms of deliberate extermination – and based on our knowledge of how increasing CO2 is greening up the biosphere, those in favor of CO2 control are unconcerned about said extermination.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Jim Clarke wrote:
“I would rather praise the individual who acts in their own self interest and produces wonderful benefits for society, than the person with altruistic intentions that screws everything up! ”
Outstanding point.
Can you point out for the group where the unnamed person with altruistic intentions in your argument has screwed everything up?
What about naming people with altruistic intentions not in your argument who have screwed everything up?
Thank you in advance.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:11 am
“I would rather praise the individual who acts in their own self interest and produces wonderful benefits for society, than the person with altruistic intentions that screws everything up! In the end, results are all that should matter in policy decisions.”
That would be great if Locke’s old invisible hand was the way the modern world really works. Unfortunately, Mancur Olsen’s Logic of Collective Action is probably closer to the reality – small oligopolist groups with shared economic incentives (and acting in pursuit of self interest) generally achieve greater levels of membership support and coordination than those acting out of a broader conception of the public good, and thus tend to have greater infuence on policy. That dynamic isn’t unfamiliar in environmental issues, and often it has not led to wonderful benefits for society, but has rather led to screwing everything up when it comes to environmental goods. Toxic waste dumps often are products of firms that were left (or found ways to be left) to pursue unconstrained self interest.
Personally, I think that Gore’s point is not really entirely altruistic insofar as one places a value the natural and social environment they will be leaving to their children and grandchildren. Mitigation and adaptation may both be needed but adaptation will also have its own uncertainties, costs and questions that may be even touqher to resolve than mitigation. If the potential for large scale social disruption were to occur in poor developing countries as a result of climate change, just how likely would developed countries be to take actions to bear costs and deal with large scale migration? From an ethical point of view, how justifiable is adaptation that requires artic and island cultures to be destroyed in order to limit mitigation costs and efforts?
February 25th, 2007 at 8:56 am
“JJWFromMe does not appear to be concerned about whether or not Al Gore’s proposals will actually solve any problems.”
Gosh, Dr. Pielke, your blog sure does attract a lot of libertarian types. Maybe this phenomenon has something to do with your Wikipedia entry, Dr. Pielke.
(BTW, how about those pointy-headed types at the AEI and CEI, our lovely libertarian think tanks? They sure have come out with some great policy product for us in recent years.)
Anyway, Gore has come out with some solutions recently, it’s just that our press hasn’t seen them as newsworthy. But he made it quite clear why he set out to describe the problem before offering a solution. You need to get the knowledge out into the public before the debate over solutions has a proper context. Friedrich Hayek would have agreed, no?
To scorn Gore for giving the facts stikes me as paternalistic, which is strange coming from libertarians.
Gore has a point that the production of CO2 and Methane is the surest way to limit the scope of the problem. If I were the people at the end of the line, so to speak, essentially the people at the bottom of the pecking order who are asked to adapt, I would be very peeved if my government never adequately asked the cui bono questions. Who benefits from my dealing with the crap that rolled downhill at me because greenhouse gas emissions weren’t curbed? I would think it especially perverse if people got wealthy in the process of creating my problems.
So I think it makes some sense for Gore to want to frontload advocating lowering greenhouse gas emissions over advocating adaptation (or implementing “air capture”, or getting everyone rich before we tackle climate change, or building big refrigerators to lug up to the arctic and refreeze the ice, or whatever).
February 25th, 2007 at 9:29 am
mb – you have, in addressing Jim Clarke’s point, shown a lack of vision of the big picture. Don’t worry, you’re not alone.
When talking about real pollution you are correct. However, given that the only real thing we have observed in the real world that is attributable to increased CO2 is an actual expansion of the commons by greening the earth, your observation is non sequitur. As we are, and live in, a carbon based biosphere, by recycling fossil fuels we are rescuing usable carbon from the depths. Whatever else we discover to be happening could be of secondary importance. It depends, for one thing, whether one believes in shallow or deep ecology, and what will eventually happen when our overpopulation becomes critical.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
OK, Dr. Pielke– I read the papers you linked to above. I remain concerned that adaptation will play the role of a “consolation prize” that the climate change winners will pay the losers. So I disagree with you that adaptation is a good use of the “bandwidth” allotted to this issue in public debate, at least at this stage.
There is no doubt that good information that helps countries and localities adapt to the consequences of climate change is important. But does it belong in the debate? I think Gore is justified in saying that it does not, at least at this point.
(Now can you release my previous comment on this thread from your spam filter? Thanks.)
February 25th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
JJWfromME- Thanks for taking a look at those papers. I hope that you can also appreciate that reasonable people can agree that climate change presents a problem yet disagree about how we might best respond. I will continue to react strongly to suggestions that adaptation does not belong in the climate debate.
As far as the political leanings of commenters here, you’ll find all types, I am sure, which for me is one reason why running the blog is enjoyable. All are welcome …
Thanks!
February 25th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
JJWFromMe-
If I understand what you say then the city of New Orleans was justify to not maintain the levees.
I’m sure that people would have been lured into a false sense of security if the levees would have hold the surge.
After all everyone knows that hurricane Katrina was caused by GW. I’m sure that hurricane that strong never happened in the past when the level of CO2 were at their natural level.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
This was an odd comment from JJWFromMe:
“‘JJWFromMe does not appear to be concerned about whether or not Al Gore’s proposals will actually solve any problems.’
“Gosh, Dr. Pielke, your blog sure does attract a lot of libertarian types.”
At first I thought it was intended as an insult of libertarians, but then I realized that it seems to imply that libertarians are the only ones concerned about whether proposals will actually solve problems — so I guess it was really just a strange compliment.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I am in the same camp as JJWFromME. However it is not either – or, but a matter of timing.
I do have to accept the guidance of the experts in the field. (If the natives tell us there is a precipice ahead, we would do well to heed their advice and take care or we may well find ourselves in free fall.)
Adaptation is a relatively long-term requisite. It will be forced on us, but it will take many different forms and there will be many different responses depending upon the threat and the local circumstances.
On the other hand, if we start work directed at mitigating GW as soon as possible, we could reduce our own contribution to the problem and conceivably diminish the ultimate impact on the climate. Moreover, we would be directing our effort towards a single goal and, if at least partially successful, could well cut down the need for adaptation, although it seems that some adaptation will be required.
Once we have mitigation kick started, we can then turn to the most pressing requirements for adaptation.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Tim: your response seems not only a bit on the snotty side, but it’s wrong – the general consensus among most scientists that have studied the data and the issue is expressed by IPCC -
• It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than
observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place.
• The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone.
Arrhenius pointed out some of the dynamics of how GHGs might affect the planet before the beginning of the last century. The climate, glacier and sea level changes that we are seeing now certainly do not contradict his work.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Sorry if I seem snotty – maybe it’s because I keep asking this question and haven’t received an adequate answer. You also missed the point.
What I want to know is how the response to increasing the lapse rate (increasing ghg’s)differs from just increasing the temperature of the troposphere (cloud and other albedo changes). The lapse rate is the wet adiabat – obvously convection must adjust to maintain that. That being the case, how can there be any rational correlation drawn between past warm periods and what may be coming up? How do models treat the difference?
February 25th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
As I write this, Inconvenient Truth has just won the Oscar for Best Documentary. Best Documentary? It’s a PowerPoint presentation with some sappy dialogue about a couple of truly tragic events in Al Gore’s life that have nothing to do with the PowerPoint presentation. It was emotionally affective propaganda, but I don’t think it was a really good documentary. Tell me the Oscars are not political! (The Melissa Ethridge song, however, is pretty good!)
Anyway…
Dan,
You asked for examples of self-interested individuals doing great things for society and altruistic individuals causing more harm than good. At one time, most of the people in the US fell into the former category! Perhaps they still do. Anyone who works hard to pay the bills and raise a family, falls into this category. From Bill Gates to the guy changing your oil…all form a great web of wealth creation that benefits all and even makes altruistic endeavors possible! I bet all who are reading this need look no further than your own parents or even yourselves to find individuals who have contributed to the well-being of society while pursuing their own self-interest.
Unfortunately, there is also no shortage of the second group. We will assume for this discussion that these individuals are truly as altruistic as they paint themselves to be. The classic example is Typhoid Mary, spreading the deadly disease while trying to offer aid and comfort. Even more deadly is William Ruckelhouse, who ignored all the scientific evidence and banned the use of DDT. He was not alone in this, but he is at least partially responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people in the Third World. Then there are the men in the Johnson Era who designed the War on Poverty. Talk about mismanagement of a war! Trillions spent, no objectives achieved and the inadvertent creation of a violent under-class in US urban centers, plus the near destruction of the black family in America!
Was there ever a dumber idea than giant, concrete urban housing projects for the poor? I hope not!
Add George W. Bush to the list for his over reaction to terrorism (for all you liberals).
mb,
Adapting to climate change is much the same as adapting to extreme weather events. The uncertainties and risks of failure are negligible compared to any attempt to control climate change, which will likely be impossible for a long time to come. Even if we could keep the Earth’s temperature at some arbitrary stable number, adaptation to extreme weather events will still be required. For example, the recently adopted Florida Building Code will reduce hurricane damage in Florida far more than if we could magically return atmospheric CO2 to 280 ppm tomorrow! Bringing clean water and sanitation to the Third World would have an exponentially higher return at preventing the spread of disease than stopping the temperature from warming a degree or two!
Not only is adaptation far more likely to produce immediate and highly beneficial results, it is considerably less expensive!
While it sounds harsh, cultures that do not adapt to changing conditions, die. This is true for all cultures at all times. Cultures that refuse to or can not adapt to change, pass away. If Tuvala keeps pumping water from the ground and using beach sand for construction, the island will likely disappear regardless of sea level rise, which, by the way, has been rising since the peak of the last ice age. Stable CO2 will not stop the oceans from rising. Only the onset of the next ice age will do that!
In your response to Tim Clear you used the expression “the consensus of most scientists…”. Since most scientists have never been asked their opinion, it remains unknown what ‘most scientists’ think. It is also irrelevant, for at one time or another, ‘most scientists’ have been wrong. Many scientists currently disagree that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change and they do so for very sound, scientific reasons. I do not know the exact percentage nor do I care. I read and understand the IPCC arguments, but I do not agree with many of their conclusions. Do you read and understand the arguments of those scientists who doubt CO2 is a great threat to the planet?
Finally, any warming, regardless of the cause, would produce the effects that Arrhenius described so long ago. Since the planet is always warming or cooling, and since he made those comments at the end of an unusually cold period, it would be bizarre if the things he described did not come to pass. Whether or not increasing CO2 is responsible for most of the warming is still not certain, despite what the IPCC says.
JJWFromMe,
I am not a libertarian and I am not sure why a desire for policies that actually produce desired results would indicate that I was. I would think that all political concerns would have a similar desire, but history indicates that my assumption may be wrong.
Tim Clear,
Thanks!
(Sorry to all for the lengthy post!)
February 26th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Tim:
I’d be all for bringing “clean water and sanitation to the Third World” regardless of global warming, but that is beside the issue of climate change. If political opponents of mitigating action on climate change were serious about that argument, they’d have followed through, but it’s really just a canard. As to whether that “would have an exponentially higher return at preventing the spread of disease than stopping the temperature from warming a degree or two!” that would remain to be seen. Insofar as migration, dislocations, and conflict are generated as a result of changing climate,that might not be the case. Potential effects of extreme climate change such as desertification and water shortages could have some nasty social consequences.
Re consensus of scientists, the charge of the IPCC is to review peer reviewed literature in the area and try to come up with a consensus of what is out there. I won’t say they do a perfect job, I’m not sure any group really could. Part of the reason I visit this site is because Roger et al make some very valid points about problems with the process, and I do try to see diverse views on the issue. In terms of peer reviewed articles, my impression is that the IPCC review does not seem pretty much off the mark, and that’s where I’d place my bets.
BTW: I have also come across coherent arguments by Ph.D.s in biology pointing out gaps and weaknesses in the theory of evolution, and therefore favor teaching creationism/intelligent design. Nevertheless, I’d have to say that this is another case where my bets would be with what most scientists and literature in the area suggest with regard to that controversy.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:20 am
It looks like adapt ranks near the bottom of this list:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/grocc/grocc4_statement.html
Number 5 out of 6.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:57 am
mb -
Re your comment “I’d be all for bringing “clean water and sanitation to the Third World” regardless of global warming, but that is beside the issue of climate change”
You don’t see how that statement is wrong? Do you think we *can* stop using fossil fuels *and* bring clean water and sanitation to the third world? Have you ever been there?
But, it was Jim who brought it up, and he’s absolutely right.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
My favorite real world analogy for what is currently happening with AGW theory is the old theory of the Earth centered universe. For hundreds of years, the majority of scientists accepted this theory as almost self-evident. The problem was that some strange behaviors were going on in the heavens. In order to account for the less than perfect motions they were observing, scientists developed ingenious ways to explain the data. They developed elaborate models with complex epicycles. While the set-up was almost torturous in its complexity, it covered all the bases!
Today, the same process is occurring in climate change science. The basic assumption is that CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature change. The problem is that the climate is behaving in ways that don’t exactly fit the theory. Problems like global cooling as CO2 concentrations increase faster than ever, step changes in warming and cooling instead of a steady rise, large and unpredicted changes in oceanic heat content, Antarctic cooling when it should be warming faster than anywhere and most of all, an historically variable global climate when CO2 was stable!
For every item that doesn’t fit the theory, supporters have come up with ingenious ‘epicycles’ to explain what is happening. These ‘fixes’ are so complex, that it is as difficult to argue for or against them. There simply isn’t enough data to tell one way or the other. The one exception to the ‘fix’ strategy is historical climate. To get around this, they just decided to rewrite history!
The AGW theory is a series of assumptions built specifically to maintain the validity of the initial assumption. It is ‘faith-based’.
On the other hand, a combination of solar activity (primarily, but not solely cosmic ray flux) and ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, neatly explain most of the short and long term climate change that we have observed. Furthermore, these factors do a much better job at explaining the observed regional patterns as well! It is interesting that these climate regulators are virtually ignored by the IPCC!
My point is that any person or group that can ignore enough reality to accept the largely faith based theory of AGW, can also ignore the fact that adaptation to climate change is a far superior policy to CO2 mitigation. There is little point in arguing the finer details when the real disagreement lies in the most basic assumptions of AGW theory.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Jim Clarke.
I was interested in your comments about DDT so I checked Wikipedia and I find
“DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics.
“El Salvador actually saw its cases of malaria increase during years of high DDT usage.
“As of 2006, DDT continues to be used in other (primarily tropical) countries where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are serious health problems. Use of DDT in public health to control mosquitoes is primarily done inside buildings and through inclusion in household products and selective spraying; this greatly reduces environmental damage compared to the earlier widespread use of DDT in agriculture.
“In September 2006, almost 30 years after it phased out widespread indoor spraying of DDT, the World Health Organization has announced that DDT will be used as one of the three main tools against malaria.”
The article is quite long and your broad brush comment about DDT glosses over the fact that EPA ban under William Ruckelhouse applied only to the US and that at first he actually rejected the order to ban DDT. One might wonder what the pressures were, but could it be the fact that DDT is in the public domain might well have had something to do with it?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Jim:
“My point is that any person or group that can ignore enough reality to accept the largely faith based theory of AGW, can also ignore the fact that adaptation to climate change is a far superior policy to CO2 mitigation. There is little point in arguing the finer details when the real disagreement lies in the most basic assumptions of AGW theory.”
Hmm – Roger here seems to have swallowed the “largely faith based theory of AGW”, yet is still strongly in favor of adaptation. I’m not sure what policies his father favors, but he also certainly seems to have swallowed the KoolAid, as he sees a number of human forcings, including CO2.
Of course, if you’re of the view that man has no discernable impact on climate, then what adaptation policy can you possible favor, other than to have governments everywhere do nothing, and leave all “adaptations” to private economic actors? Would you still be interested in an international effort to improve governance in third world on its own merits, assuming there is no AGW to prick our consciences?
February 27th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Roger, I imagine you understand that international mechanisms focussing on mitigation are already throwing tons of money at development projects in China and elsewhere. Yes, these mechanisms are flawed, but they can be fixed, and will be, if there is sufficient political will to deal with mitigation globally.
It’s the denial that there is any problem to mitigate that is the barrier to politcal attention being focussed on the need to adapt – both at home and abroad – not the focus on mitigation itself.
I suppose that Gore feels that from many, the call for adaptation is a canard, but I personally feel that his argument would be stronger if he’d say that AGW is such a serious problem and the change takes such long lead times that a fair degree of climate change is now inevitable, so we will also start to have to adapt, even as we try to implement mitigatation policies that will shift consumption and investment policies towards carbon-lite technologies and practices.