- “Money spent on mitigation reduces the money that can be spent on mitigation [I presume you mean adaptation].”

This is certainly overstated, as there are many synergies between the two, as Roger and others keep pointing out. Moreover, it is conceptually wrong. Pricing carbon would not alter incentives by individuals or firms to adapt to a changing climate – where the primary adaptive response occurs. And if any carbon tax were fully rebated, it would actually leave the poor and middle classes better able to afford adaptive measures. At the government level, if carbon taxes are not refunded, they could of course be used to fund adaptive changes to infrastructure and governance, whether at home or in poorer countries.

Also, if we mitigated by migrating power supply from fossil fuels to nuclear, we would be better adapted as the nuclear fuel cycle is much smaller and self-contained, and thus less vulnerable than other power supply. Imposing carbon taxes would enhance our adaptability by leading to greater diversity in our energy sources and service technologies, both for power and transportation.

- “Can you please cite one instance in human history where a civilization did not have to adapt to climate change.”

Human societies are tremendously adaptive, and the technologically advanced market economies (especially if unhindered by too much government regulation and rent-seeking) are even more so. Our abilities to adapt continue to grow, and I have no doubt that humanity will survive whatever we are helping Nature to throw at us.

- “The emphasis on mitigation in the global warming debate is largely insane.”

A great part of our adaptability is not passive or reactive, but the ability to anticipate and head off potential problems. THAT is why so many of the “largely insane” as you put it – from AEI to Exxon, insurers, scientists, world leaders, defense analysts, leading economists and the Pope – favor measures to shift our economies away from fossil fuels. I`ve summarized just a few of them in this post:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/27/top-demagogues-jim-hansen-florida-power-exxon-aei-margo-thoring-major-economists-george-will-prefer-rebated-carbon-taxes.aspx

Please also see Marty Weitzman`s “On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate”, FINAL Version July 7, 2008, http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/REStatFINAL.pdf.

Here`s what Cato said today about Weitzman: “There is merit to the argument that society should consider a policy response to the threat of global warming. A small chance of an enormous calamity equals a risk that may deserve mitigation. That’s why people buy insurance, after all.” http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/01/choosing-what-to-worry-about/

Regards,

Tom

“Money spent on CO2 mitigation reduces the money that can be spent on adaptation.”

Can you please cite one instance in human history where a civilization did not have to adapt to climate change.

My point here is that natural climate change has always happened and will never stop. Adaptation will always be required. Notions that CO2 mitigation will reduce the need for adaptation are unfounded when the need for adaptation to existing natural climate fluctuations and severe weather events is woefully inadequate.

Mitigation is expensive compared to adaptation. Money spent on mitigation reduces the money that can be spent on mitigation. Adaptation products have financial benefits regardless of climate change, for they reduce the cost of severe weather events. If society adapted to severe weather and natural climate variability, it would likely solve most of the issues associated with the prospects of man-made climate change. If why try to mitigate man-made climate change through CO2 mitigation, we will still be required to increase our adaptive abilities nearly as much as if we did no mitigation at all.

If climate sensitivity to increasing CO2 is about a third of what the IPCC reports, which many new studies are suggesting, than mitigation is not only a complete waste of money, but will likely have seriously negative societal consequences, like corruption and increased governmental power over the masses (the negative consequences being true regardless of the climate sensitivity).

The emphasis on mitigation in the global warming debate is largely insane.

“As human populations place an increasing demand on water availability, it certainly seems that, having more total precipitation is more preferable than having less total precipitation.” There are value judgments embedded in this that I won’t address, but even conceding your view, having more precipation and a greater number of heavy rain days still leaves us with something to adapt to, doesn’t it?

Roger, first, perhaps you wish to see the adaptation agenda stated differently; if so, I’m interested in hearing it. Perhaps you wish that the report focussed simply on climate risks and opportunities for society to reduce exposure to them, irrespective of the question of whether man is contributing to an elevation of them? I hesitate to put words in your mouth; I do hope you will copy your comments on the draft CCSP here. However, from my own perspective, the approach of the draft report seems both fair and common sense – our society doesn’t assign our government the job of master risk analyzer and behavior micro-manager – people and enterprises generally analyze, accept and respond to risks on their own. So it seems appropriate for the government to approach domestic adaptation from the perspective of: we understand that climate is changing, at least partly because of human influences (that it is too late/impractical to undo), and these are the ways we expect such changes to be manifested. I don’t view this approach as “negative”, as you seem to.

Second, no doubt you will clarify in your comments on the report precisely HOW “discussing precip trends in a passage about flooding, and flood damage, is highly misleading.” But for now, you simply haven’t said why. Rather, you’ve said that I’ve obviously been “fooled” to think that river flooding and precipitation are related in some way”. I hope to be educated in due course, but meanwhile note that you yourself have stated that “there is a strong relationship between precipitation and flood damage”.

Mark, perhaps this is a clearer statement of my views: “adaptation is the attempt to maximize welfare in the face of climate risks that cannot be avoided. For society as a whole, it is the attempt to maximize welfare in the face of climate risks that society chooses not, or is unable, to avoid by climate mitigation measures”.

1. I certainly harbor no illusions that climate will stop changing if somehow we all magically stopped emitting GHGs tomorrow, and I think the report makes very clear that the authors think that the climate cannot stop on a dime and that there are further climate changes in the works, simply from the delayed effects of existing forcings.

2. Agreed (of course). Yes, we’re going to have to adapt, no matter what. But it’s perfectly appropriate to point out, like you do, that the reason that we have to adapt is that we simply CANNOT mitigate alone, or in time even if everyone else is on board.

Regards,

Tom

PS: Forgive the combined responses. It’s easier than logging in and out and in multiple times.

You write, “…but this is puzzling – what is adaptation, except finding ways to live with increased risks that cannot be avoided by trying to change the climate?”

I’m confused. I think you meant, “…cannot be avoided by *not* changing the climate.”

Is that right?

If I’m right, I have a couple responses:

1) You (and the report authors) seem to be under the impression that climate won’t change if “we” (see comment #2) stop emitting greenhouse gases. But climate has changed and will continue to change for the forseeable future (i.e., the next many decades) regardless of what is done now. Even if the entire world

2) Even if “we” (being the U.S.) stopped emitting GHGs completely, and immediately, the U.S. and world climate will change for the rest of this century, simply because the U.S. emissions are only 1/4 of the world’s emissions of GHGs.

For both those reasons, the “increasing risk” of which you speak won’t be avoided, even if Klatu comes down and makes the U.S.–or even the entire world–stand still tomorrow. So, as Roger points out, it’s simply wrong to portray adaptation as what will be needed if “we” fail to mitigate. Especially if “we” means the U.S. We’re going to have to adapt, no matter what.

Mark

As mentioned above the more into the CCSP Draft Report I get, the more appalled I become.

It is as if it is a mere rehashing of all the pet projects of some of the authors–without any recognition that these pet projects have come under harsh criticism by knowledgeable and credible researchers.

For instance, I am interested in your take on the “Society” section, specifically the damages from extreme weather and insurance losses, say p.50 and 51.

Nowhere in the entire report can I find a single reference of yours despite much talk of flood damages, insurance losses, extreme weather, etc.–all topics that you have published extensively on. Instead I find prominently featured the Science study by Mills, and other papers that I believe that you have taken exception to in the past.

Nowhere is there any indication that the “facts” presented in the CCSP report may be questioned (or in many cases deeply criticized).

It is as if they think that if they just keep on saying the same things that eventually they will become true because the critics will simply give up and go away!

The same is true in the human health sections. Nowhere is any of the work that we have done demonstrating that Americans are becoming better adapted and thus less sensitive to (increasing) heat waves discussed. Instead, the section is dominated by the findings of work that we have heavily criticized for using improper techniques (e.g. failing to take into account that we are becoming less sensitive when making future projections). And as an added slap in the face, the only citation of any of our work is in support of something that we hardly discussed in the cited paper—in fact, the citation is largely inappropriate.

My take thus far is that the CCSP is a perversion of science. The more I read, the less convinced I become that this opinion will change.

-Chip

You write “However, if average rainfall is increasing, even if ‘the proportion of annual rainfall contributed by the single wettest day was unchanged’ (as you conclude), doesn’t this mean that the number of days with heavy rainfall is increasing?”

Yes! That is the whole point and one of the reasons we wrote the paper. Based upon the nature of precipitation and its daily distribution, when you get more total rain for a year more of it falls in heavier events–so making a big deal about this is acting as if it is unexpected in some way. As human populations place an increasing demand on water availability, it certainly seems that, having more total precipitation is more preferable than having less total precipitation. And, it is the inherent characteristic of rainfall that when you get more total rain, more of it falls in heavier events.

Basically, you can’t have both–more precipitation and less heavier events. Unless, of course you totally change climate regimes, say by moving to Seattle from Dallas.

The CCSP report (and its authors) seem to want to complain about water limitations AND more heavy rain. Why? Because, beyond anything else, they only want to push the idea that ALL climate change is BAD climate change. I have never encountered a bigger bunch of pessimists is all my life. What little good they do begrudge, they quickly follow-up with, something like “but it will only be temporary.”

The more time I spend with the CCSP Draft Report, the more disgraceful it becomes.

I’ll post more on this at our World Climate Report site in the days ahead.

-Chip

The issues that you raise on adaptation and its definition are quite important, see:

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

It is exactly this definition of adaptation as “failed mitigation” that I object to. Adaptation will be necessary regardless.

On precip, I assume that the CCSP numbers are correct. But so what? These numbers are not directly (or even indirectly) related to flooding, which the passage I am discussing is about. It does not matter that the report talks about storm surge elsewhere. Just as aluminum tubes may be used in nuclear reactors in France, this fact doesn’t say anything about what is going on in Iran. It is not nuance I am looking for in this case. Once again, discussing precip trends in a passage about flooding, and flood damage, is highly misleading. It obviously fooled you, as you appear to think that the two are related in some way.

For further details on the relationship, see:

Pielke, Jr., R. A. and M.W. Downton, 2000. Precipitation and Damaging Floods: Trends in the United States, 1932-97. Journal of Climate, 13(20), 3625-3637.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-60-2000.11.pdf

Thanks again for your comments

The legislative mandate is Public Law 101-606:

http://www.gcrio.org/gcact1990.html

More details can be found here:

Pielke Jr., R. A., 1995: Usable Information for Policy: An Appraisal of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Policy Sciences, 38, 39-77.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-109-1995.07.pdf

However, if average rainfall is increasing, even if “the proportion of annual rainfall contributed by the single wettest day was unchanged” (as you conclude), doesn’t this mean that the number of days with heavy rainfall is increasing?