« Climate Change »

"However, his focus on sticking it to the 'moral cretins' he so despises has the side effect of preventing greater help to people like those pictured below waiting for help in the aftermath of hurricane Mitch."

Gosh, if only those horrible enviros weren't keeping the Bush administration from adequately funding disaster aid for foreign countries. *snork*

Roger, possibly you had missed this, but I seem to recall it being the evil enviros who have raised issues like changing U.S. policy so as to no longer encourage the type of land use practices that lead to photos like the one above.

I think that opposite is true. If adaptation were taken seriously and accounted for properly the costs would be seen to be huge and mitigation costs would not loom so large.

Every time a ski field buys snow making machinery, or builds a chair lift to higher slopes they entered the costs in the global warming adaptation ledger. Every time a sea wall is built or rebuilt a component of the cost should go towards the ever higher sea level that they are defending against. Flood and drought protections schemes should charge against the lost protection that mountain glaciers have provided for free. etc

The immigration departments of the developed world should be provided with some money to take the environmental refugees from places that are unable to cope with the changes.

Adaptation to global warming is going on all the time. However it is invisible as the people paying for it are not the ones that would have to pay for mitigation.

From this morning's Democracy Now: A left wing hard core believer in Global Warming, arguing for pragmatic approaches right now:

Transcripts and audio at:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/05/1351224

The following is an excerpt:
-----

The environmental journalist, and author David Helvarg wrote in last week's Los Angeles Times that, "The facts are simple. The best available science tells us that we're faced with a projected sea-level rise and an increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes. We need a pragmatic approach to a changed reality. Those who think they can rebuild in harm's way using the same assumptions that worked in the last century or who believe they can manage nature by stockpiling generators and water bottles, are living a dangerous fantasy. Unfortunately theirs is a fantasy we are all having to pay for."

"Well it means that we're facing another series of disasters like last year, where we saw a million environmental refugees created in this nation. Half of them are still displaced. And as I said, the hurricanes are natural phenomena, but they're being unnaturally intensified by our failed policies, certainly around climate and fossil fuel fire climate disruption, the impact that has in terms of intensifying category four and five hurricanes, beach erosion, a greater exposure. We're putting more heat in the system, and heat is the driver of hurricanes.

We have these 30-year natural cycles of greater and lesser hurricane activity that are linked to a one-degree warming in the North Atlantic. You add another degree of warming since 1970 from fossil fuel fire climate change from additional carbon dioxide, and you see tremendous energy. And we saw that last year. We're projecting more and similar storms in the future.

"And we're not prepared. It's very disturbing what hasn’t been done in response to last year's hurricane activity, which is we've thrown tens of billions of dollars at contractors in the Gulf region. We haven’t committed dollar -- which is to say Congress hasn’t committed dollar one to wetlands restoration, even though there's a very practical in-place program called Louisiana 2050, which could restore -- for $14 billion restore the salt marshes in the bayous of southern Louisiana, which act as natural storm barriers. Every two-and-a-half miles of wetlands reduce storm surge by a foot.

I talked to Mark Davis, who runs Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. He was shocked. He says he's cynical, but even he expected Congress to begin moving on that. It hasn’t. You know, practical solutions, as I say, the Gulf Restoration Network, which represents groups of ocean activists, coastal activists, environmentalists, social justice groupings throughout the Gulf region, have issued a report on how these natural barriers could be effective in reducing these impacts.

At the same time, Congress approved $23 billion for FEMA to make payments for hurricane claims from last year, without doing anything to reform the system. One of the basic proposals is you shouldn't have this insurance unless you're an owner-occupant. A lot of the federal flood insurance is going to second homeowners, to people like where I was at the west end of Dolphin Island. 200 homes blown away, most of them rental units. And 50 of those people were already collecting insurance, our tax money essentially, from the previous year’s hurricane. A million-dollar berm, sand berm that had been built there was blown away."

Dave Roberts responds here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/6/5/16315/00252

He writes,

"But those [adaptation] policies would not be responses to climate change. They would simply be responses to human suffering.

The debate over climate change is a separate beast. In that context, "adaptation" simply means doing the sorts of things we ought to be doing anyway to reduce vulnerability to climate -- i.e., it means doing nothing in particular about climate change. There's one way to directly address climate change, and that's reducing the GHG emissions that drive it. In the context of the climate-change debate, advocating for adaptation means advocating for a non-response. It means advocating for nothing."

Wow. Read that again.

"... [Adaptation policies] would simply be responses to human suffering ... It means advocating for nothing."

Here is another perspective:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., 1998. Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy. Global Environmental Change, 8(2), 159-170.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-161-1998.13.pdf

Nosmo- Thanks, very good stuff!!

Dave is basically correct, but he overstates his point. We mostly need to deal with the causes of global warming by greatly reducing driving and energy consumption, but there's no reason we can't also take steps to help people harmed by our destructive lifestyles. Ecologically friendly things like wetland restoration and moving people out of vulnerable areas (why do you think they're called BARRIER islands?) should top the list of the band aid approach.

Proud to be a Moral Cretin for Trying Reduce Human Suffering.

So since I espouse adaptation, I am a “moral cretin” because I would rather try to alleviate “human suffering.” If so, I wear that badge with pride. Framed this way, climate change is indeed a moral issue, but I suspect Dave Roberts is on the wrong side of it. If it’s a choice between alleviating human suffering today versus reducing the amount of climate change tomorrow – it must necessarily be tomorrow, because of the inertia of the climate system – I would rather go with the former for a variety of reasons outlined in greater detail in:
Goklany, I.M.: 2005. “A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation?” Energy & Environment 16: 667-680, available at http://members.cox.net/igoklany/EEv16_Stab_or_Adaptation.pdf

[Barry, BTW, you state: “If adaptation were taken seriously and accounted for properly the costs would be seen to be huge and mitigation costs would not loom so large.” The above paper will give you an idea of the relative costs and benefits associated with mitigation and adaptation (broadly defined, per Roger’s perceptive 1998 paper cited above, for example). You’ll find that in the short-to-medium term investing in reducing vulnerability to climate-sensitive problems that might be exacerbated by climate change will bring far greater rewards, more rapidly and more certainly than any mitigation scheme. In the long term, of course, some level of mitigation may be necessary.]

The basic problems that I have with hard core mitigationists are the following:
(a) Many who believe in mitigation-uber-alles seem to think mitigation and adaptation have to be mutually exclusive. They don’t have to be, if for no reason other than that they operate on different time scales. Mitigation is effective in the long term – a few decades hence – whereas reducing vulnerability is for the short-to medium term.
(b) Mitigationists also don’t seem to appreciate that through the foreseeable future, the contribution of climate change to climate-sensitive aspects of human suffering should, for the most part, be relatively modest compared to the contribution of non-climate-change-related factors (including climate variability and current climate). This is based on results of studies that project the global impacts of climate change through 2085 (i.e., the foreseeable future) undertaken for the UK’s DEFRA. This is why in the short-to-medium term adaptation is superior to mitigation. [For a detailed and more nuanced discussion, see the paper cited above.]
(c) There is the naïve notion because something ought to be done, we have no responsibility to ensure that it’s, in fact, accomplished. [In other words, since little or nothing is being done about human suffering, we have no responsibility for ensuring that something is indeed done about reducing it.] This is the basic argument that Roberts advances for the claim that “advocating for adaptation means advocating for a non-response. It means advocating for nothing.” This is nothing but the tragedy-of-the-commons mentality applied to human suffering. [BTW, one could just as easily argue that mitigation ought to be undertaken anyway; therefore, to advocate for mitigation, is to advocate for nothing.]
(d) The erroneous notion that the sole objective of climate change policy is to stop climate change rather than to reduce its damages to a level consistent with satisfying the myriad and often-competing needs and goals of society. [I have a paper titled, “Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development,” forthcoming in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, that addresses this matter in greater detail.]
(e) The equally erroneous notion, apparently articulated by Roberts, that reducing vulnerability to current climate is doing nothing for climate change. Consider, malaria for example, a disease, we are told, that could become more prevalent because of climate change. Developing a malaria vaccine, for instance, would help eliminate malaria whether it is caused by climate change or current climate related factors. – and do it far more effectively than any mitigation and probably more rapidly.

Indur,

I have a problem with Roger's accounting. He only takes account of large scale adaptation. I was thinking of the numerous small scale adaptations necessary that go unnoticed. People will complain if you tell them to use their cars less to reduce emissions. But if they have to detour because their favourite road is under repair due to inundation from the sea they don't see a linkage, they just mutter under their breath and accept the cost.

Of course adaptation is necessary. Most adaptation measures would be sensible even without global warming hastening their need. However mitigation now will prevent more adaptation being required later.

"... [Adaptation policies] would simply be responses to human suffering ... It means advocating for nothing."

Roger, your creative use of ellipses has the effect of making it appear as though I view human suffering as nothing. Why you would wish to imply that, or wrestle such a bizarre interpretation out of what I wrote, is beyond me.

To reiterate: "Adapting" society to climate is not a response to global warming specifically. It is a general matter of public safety, and as such one of the ongoing obligations of government. Global warming makes the task more urgent, but even if there were no global warming, the obligation would still exist. Of course we should do what we can to forestall suffering from droughts, storms, and floods. I don't know how to put it more plainly.

The Bush administration has woefully failed at that task, yet it (along with many right-leaning pundits) has adopted adaptation as a way of muddying the water and drawing attention away from the task of mitigation. Talking about "adaptation" in the context of the global warming debate lends aid to that effort, which I want no part of. Adaptation will be forced on us; mitigation won't. It will be forever delayed unless a broad coalition demands it; that's the coalition we should be fighting to create.

Indur, I don't think you're a moral cretin, I am not "mitigation-uber-alles," and I don't think that mitigation and adaptation are mutually exclusive, as I tried to explain in this post:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/5/28/12824/1464

Dave-

Thanks for your further comments. But we will simply have to agree-to-disagree on several points, among them:

1. You write, ""Adapting" society to climate is not a response to global warming specifically." I could not disagree more strongly. Of course adaptation is a specific response to global warming, and this has been recognized for decades. Even if GHG emissions went to zero today there is still a commitment to climate change which will require adaptation as a specific response. Saying otherwise is simply incorrect.

2. You write, "The Bush administration has woefully failed at that task, yet it (along with many right-leaning pundits) has adopted adaptation as a way of muddying the water and drawing attention away from the task of mitigation." Given #1 above, adaptation is needed. Just because the Bush Administration supports something need not resort in a knee-jerk reaction that it must be wrong or evil. Is there not room for a bit of nuance here? Adaptation is needed, and the more supporters for it the better whether they are right wing, left wing, or whatever. Who cares? Good policy is good policy.

Thanks!

Indur- Well said!!

And the record of the Bush regime on climate change adaptation is...?

Consider this twofer. Motivate people using various means to move away from coasts / megacities and into the interiors of continents. Motivate them to get out of the floodplains and into piedmont areas. Consider the benefits to the people who do it, to the economies that incur it, and to the specific communities who receive it.

Steve- Why like just about every other Bush policy -- pretty poor. But believe it or not, the climate issue is about more than George Bush ;-) I for one can't wait until he is retired in Texas, but even then and long after the climate issue will be with us.

To Indur Goklany, I would add that adaptation and mitigation play on different spatial (as well as temporal) scales. Those who are most vulnerable must adapt regardless of national priorities.

To Dave Roberts, I would add that adaptation and mitigation play to different sides of the brain--and are complementary. Some coastal officials were not very interested in energy policy, for example, but very interested in preserving beaches or coastal properties. So they let me in the door to talk coastal. And then they drafted policies responding to sea level rise. And then other people said: "Look, the city engineer is not a flaming environmentalist--if he is taking this seriously, then maybe we should too.

Allow me to offer a tobacco paraphrase:

Advocating a cure for cancer, in the current political context, does not increase the odds of sensible, balanced tobacco policy. It simply, if inadvertently, helps the tobacco companies cloud the debate and avoid the difficult steps required to ban smoking in public. And whatever else we do, that task is paramount.

In an ideal, abstract policy debate, sure, I'd say we should find a cure for cancer. But in the current political situation, I don't want to provide any ammunition for the moral cretins who are squirming frantically to avoid policies that might impact their corporate donors. Until they're gone from the scene -- until we have an administration serious about addressing this problem -- I'm going to focus on regulating smoking.

Perhaps I've been too influenced by gloomers and doomers beyond the climate change realm of late (Kunstler's The Long Emergency, 2005 and Bonner and Wiggin's Empire of Debt), but mitigation and adaptation are peas in a pod and, based on what these and other authors of their ilk are suggesting, climate is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we and our children will have to contend with in the coming decades. All the above discussions seem to be based on the assumption that the US economy will continue to be robust and that we'll transition sooner or later to some climate-friendly alternative to the concentrated buried solar energy of fossil fuels. I wouldn't bet the farm on it....in fact buying a farm and getting back in touch with seasonality and contending with the unknowns of climate variability when it comes to growing food might be a good strategy.

The very title of the Lloyd's of London climate change report (adapt or bust) hints that society (and certainly the insurance industry) could, indeed crash and burn....which ironically might trigger a major reduction in GHG emissions, as in Russian in the 90s.

Our "what if" scnearios should at least consider the possibility that those suffering in the near future may be in our own communities, not only due to more Katrina-like events, but potentially suburbs and large cities when the housing bubble bursts and/or oil hits $150 a barrell or $5 a gallon and/or another terrorist stike further shakes our confidence and/or bird flu becomes pandemic.

Bottomline: mitigation makes sense for all kinds of reasons, but adaptability is imperative, not just in terms of climate directly, but in terms of the economic house of cards and infrastructure that society is now precariously perched.

Roger,
I think what Dave Roberts is saying in one of his later comments about adaptation is parallel to what you've said in the past about energy policy change-- there are plenty of good reasons to focus policy on adaptation without invoking climate change (meaning global warming, not climate variability). In other words, the victims of hurricane Mitch deserved better regardless of whether or not we've identified CO2 as a problem in the atmosphere. People who live in harm's way of disasters that are exacerbated by poor social conditions-- e.g. poverty, lack of choices in where to live, lack of protective infrastructure, lack of effective social systems for the vulnerable, and so on will be aided by a focus on solving those problems anyway-- not just if they are made worse by climate change. And indeed, development policies for decades have tried to improve those conditions and have not succeeded in many cases. To me, that is a more productive discussion-- why haven't we improved the lot of the very vulnerable in society with all of this time, money, and brain power focused on the task so far? Of course adaptation is a strategy for climate change-- but it is also a strategy for generally improving the human condition. We need to move the debate beyond adaptation vs. mitigation and rather try to analyze why things haven't worked so far. By the way, I said a similar thing about energy policies to promote energy efficiency in a reply to another blog entry earlier-- there's a lot of history there also.

LDilling: exactly.

If the Bush administration wanted to help the disadvantaged better protect themselves from climate, there's nothing stopping it. It could, for instance, take 5% of the money it's spent on a futile missile defense system and make a huge difference. There's any number of things it could do. The fact that it shows no interest in such policies -- *until* the subject of global warming comes up -- tells you all you need to know.

And Roger, it's nice that you're above politics and all, but Bush does matter in this debate. He's got 2.5 years left. If we believe Hansen et al., we have about 10 years before the climate cascades into irreversible changes. We can't waste 2.5 years. We need to build popular pressure on the administration. That requires a simple, powerful message.

Dear Dave,
A single powerful messages is not always more effective than a campaign that makes different appeals based on different preferences.
1. As mentioned, the campaign against lung cancer included doctors treating patients, the search for a cure for cancer, and regulations against smoking.
2. The campaign against slavery included a moral argument, an argument that it was not good for the economy, and eventually, an argument for preserving the Union.
3. The campaign for civil rights included the adaptationists (e.g. black enterprise and historically black colleges) as well as those who pushed to directly eliminate segregation and other forms of discrimination.
4. On the other hand, "Out Now" was a simple message that probably helped to end the Viet Nam War. In that case, however, there was more consensus on the solution (get out) than the problem (it was wrong to be in the war, said some; Bomb Hanoi now or get out, said others).

A casual inspection suggests that a simple powerful message works when the time has come to stop the government from doing wrong. Liberals and conservatives can eventually agree, albeit for different reasons. But when we need government to solve a problem that it did not create, we either need a crisis/catastophe (9/11, Pearl Harbor) or the gradual evolution of a consensus to which people travel by many different roads.

In that regard, it makes no more sense for adaptationists and mitigationists to criticize eachother's respective approach, than for the Army to complain that Navy relies too much on ships. Maybe we need a football game.

Best regards,
Jim

Hi Dave,
Just a postscript, I think that both political parties have pretty dismal records on effective climate policy. The main US climate policy for the past 16 years has been to do research-- both climate science and more recently climate technology. And of course some voluntary measures such as voluntary reporting of emissions and sinks. Neither party has created policy that has a mandatory component for emissions control or that aggressively promotes adaptation to climate change. Perhaps this means there is an opportunity-- for either party! Or maybe that's the optimist in me..
Lisa

Dave- Thanks for your comments. Seeking solutions that are politically acceptable to a range of interests does not make one "above politics". Mindless opposition may feel good, but it rarely results in anything other than gridlock.

Lisa- Thanks for your comments. I hope that was what Dave was thinking when he wrote something altigether different;-) It is one thing to argue that adaptation is needed for reasons beyond climate change (I obviously agree!), however it is something else altogether to suggest that thgose advocating adaptation as a component of climate policy are Bush Adminsitration supporters and imply that they are "moral cretins".

Thanks!

Hi Roger,
At the risk of beating a dead horse-- Guess I should have clarified- I was responding to a later set of exchanges, with this quote in it from DR: "In that context, "adaptation" simply means doing the sorts of things we ought to be doing anyway to reduce vulnerability to climate". I do agree with you that labelling and name-calling are bad ideas when it comes to discussing climate policy options.

David Roberts writes, "If the Bush administration wanted to help the disadvantaged better protect themselves from climate, there's nothing stopping it. It could, for instance, take 5% of the money it's spent on a futile missile defense system and make a huge difference."

Oy vey!

As I previously pointed out to Lisa Dilling (she responded that she never intended to imply otherwise), the President of the United States does not make laws.

The President of the United States is not authorized to simply take money that Congress has appropriated for missile defense, and spend it on aid to victims of natural disasters.

Yes, I know (and agree) that the President can (and should!) stop requesting money for missile defense.

But it's simply wrong--and very dangerous to our democracy--to imply or advocate that the President has the legitimate authority to take money Congress has appropriated for one purpose, and spend it on an entirely different purpose.

That is tyranny, not the rule of law.

P.S. In fact, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress or the President to spend any money on aid to victims of *any* disasters...at least according to James Madison. When Madison was a member of Congress (i.e., before he became President), a Congressional bill was proposed authorizing $15,000 in aid to French refugees. Madison rose and sarcastically remarked:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2005/09/21/155654.html

But of course, what did Madison know? He was only the "Father of the Constitution!"

My apologies for not responding to the comments on this thread earlier – I also have a day job. [I now remember why I try not get ensnared by the blogging universe, unsuccessfully, in this case.] I also apologize for the length of this response.

Barry: “I have a problem with Roger's accounting. He only takes account of large scale adaptation. I was thinking of the numerous small scale adaptations necessary that go unnoticed.”

Response: The estimates for the costs of adaptation in the paper I cited above, should account for both large- and small-scale costs. They are all taken from UN-related sources. In any case, you’ll find that over the near-to-medium term, costs of adaptation (defined as vulnerability reduction) are estimated to be so much smaller than mitigation costs that the former would be more cost-effective even if its costs were increased by an order of magnitude. Don’t take my word for it: read the paper and go to the original sources.

Barry: “However mitigation now will prevent more adaptation being required later.”

Response: This works both ways. Reducing vulnerability now would help either raise the level at which GHG may need to be stabilized or it would postpone when emission reduction measures must be instituted. In either case the result would be a reduction in mitigation costs. [Yes, postponement would likely results in cost reductions, even if one uses a zero percent discount rate -- which I wouldn’t. The reason for this is that it buys time to make emission reductions more cost-effective, i.e., it allows secular technological change to do its thing.]

David: Thanks for de-stigmatizing me. That’s better than absolution. I’m also happy to see that others also recognize there is a role for both mitigation and adaptation.

Roger – Thanks.

Steve Sadloff: “Motivate people using various means to move away from coasts / megacities and into the interiors of continents.”

Response: There is a very good piece by Holman Jenkins in today’s WSJ (2nd last page, front section) titled “Are Hurricanes Uninsurable?” Unfortunately I don’t have a link to it. My solution, which is totally impractical in a rich democracy such as ours, would be to get the government out of insuring floods, hurricanes, and other extreme events. Insurance should only be offered by private entities, and it should beunregulated, with no barriers to entry. That way, people would have a much harder time passing on their private risks to other parties. It would certainly reduce some of the attraction for the coastal areas.

Jim Titus: “I would add that adaptation and mitigation play on different spatial (as well as temporal) scales.”

Response: I agree. [Nice to hear from you, by the way.]

LDilling: “Of course adaptation is a strategy for climate change-- but it is also a strategy for generally improving the human condition. We need to move the debate beyond adaptation vs. mitigation ….”

Response: Indeed, we do. I would also add that we need to get beyond the issue of whether there is a GHG-induced component to damages from extreme events or whether it’s due to some other man-made factor or just natural variability. Sometimes – and this is one situation – we might be able agree on solutions even if we can’t agree about the ultimate source of the problem. Certainly we can do this for the short and medium term during which period adaptation is the only effective option. By the time we get beyond that, it will be a lot clearer whether – and to what extent – GHG-induced warming is to blame, and whether our mitigation efforts will bear some fruit, whether they should be redoubled or downplayed. Think of this as bringing adaptive management to climate change policy.

LDilling: “At the risk of beating a dead horse…”

Response: Go ahead. If you are going to beat a horse, it’s best if it’s already dead.

FINALLY, many of the comments suggested that the Bush administration is doing little or nothing about adaptation. For example:

Steve Bloom: “And the record of the Bush regime on climate change adaptation is...?”

Roger: “… pretty poor.”

Dave Roberts: “If the Bush administration wanted to help the disadvantaged better protect themselves from climate, there's nothing stopping it…”

Response: Following are excerpts from an op-ed titled, “Bush’s Talk and Results on AIDS,” by Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post, May 29, 2006 – hardly a friendly venue for Bush:

“The Bush administration's critics should give credit where it's due. And when it comes to the global AIDS crisis, it is due -- big-time.
“Five years ago, the U.S. government's total contribution to fighting HIV-AIDS abroad stood at $840 million. The Bush team was rightly pilloried for trade policies that impeded poor countries' efforts to buy cheap generic AIDS drugs. But at the start of 2003, the administration had a hallelujah moment. In that year's State of the Union address, President Bush promised $15 billion over five years to fight the pandemic. It was the biggest commitment to a global health challenge announced by any government, ever.

“Naturally, there were skeptics… But three years after Bush's $15 billion pledge, the skepticism has proved mostly unfounded.

“One doubt was that the administration wouldn't back its rhetoric with money. Well, since the president's pledge, spending on global AIDS programs has risen steadily: to $2.3 billion in 2004, $2.7 billion in 2005 and to $3.3 billion this year. The administration's budget for 2007 requests $4 billion from Congress, more than quadruple the level in 2001. So the Bush team is on target to exceed the $15 billion promise…

“It's not that the Bush program is perfect, and it's not that the administration is the lone hero of the AIDS crisis. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which was set up just four years ago, has channeled $5 billion toward those diseases; the Bush team should acknowledge its contribution less grudgingly, especially since the United States provides 30 percent of the fund's resources. Yet the bottom line is that the administration has faced up to a killer that's taken 25 million lives in the 25 years since its discovery. There's much more to be done -- 5 million more people get infected every year. But if you want to denounce rich countries for their negligence, the United States is the wrong target.”

The full editorial is available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052800652.html

I should note that fighting AIDS, malaria and TB are precisely the kinds of things we need to do if we want developing countries to advance on the path toward sustainable development. It is precisely because they lag in such development that they are deemed to be most vulnerable to climate change (and, I may add, other kinds of risks). Thus progress on these matters would reduce their vulnerability and enhance their adaptability (or adaptive capacity). I have addressed the interrelationship between development, adaptation and mitigation in several papers – most recently in a paper titled, “Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development,” forthcoming in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (preprint available at http://members.cox.net/igoklany/Goklany-Integrating_A&M_preprint.pdf).