Debate: Climate change mitigation vs adaptation

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should governments focus on adaptation to global warming over mitigation?

Background and context

This debate stems from some doubts as to whether it is possible or worthwhile to attempt to mitigate climate change. Some believe that climate change will happen, at this stage, no matter what we do. Therefore, it is argued, perhaps it is best that humans simply focus their limited resources on adapting to Climate Change. Or, there is a more nuanced debate as to whether mitigation should be prioritized over adaptation, even if approaches to both are pursued.

[]

[]

[]

[]

Feasibility: Is mitigation feasible?

[]

Yes

• Mitigating global warming will be easier than fighting it later. Brian Montopoli. "Middle Ground on Global Warming?". CBS News. 2 Jan. 2007 - "akin to buying fire insurance and installing sprinklers and new wiring in an old, irreplaceable house (the home planet) than to fighting a fire already raging."

• Adaption is not as economical as mitigation. "The lessons of Katrina: Global warming “adaptation” is a cruel euphemism — and prevention is far, far cheaper." Climate Progress. August 29, 2009: "The adaptation trap is the belief that 1) “it would be easier and cheaper to adapt than fight climate change” [as the Times puts it in the sub-head] and/or 2) “adaptation” to climate change is possible in any meaningful sense of the word absent an intense mitigation effort starting now to keep carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 ppm."

• Adaptation in the form of humanitarian crises is unacceptable. "The lessons of Katrina: Global warming “adaptation” is a cruel euphemism — and prevention is far, far cheaper." Climate Progress. August 29, 2009: "Katrina showed the limitations of adaptation as a response to climate change, for several reasons. [...] First, the citizens of New Orleans “adapted” to Hurricane Katrina, but I’m certain that every last one of them wishes we had prevented the disaster with stronger levees. The multiple catastrophes — extreme drought, extreme flooding, extreme weather, extreme temperatures — that global warming will bring can be suffered through, but I wouldn’t call it adaptation. [...] This Hell and High Water could be “adapted” to by billions and billions of people only in the sense that the citizens of New Orleans “adapted” to Hurricane Katrina or that people in Darfur have “adapted” to their military conflict. Such “adaptation” is better called “suffering” as former AAAS President John Holdren describes it in talks."

• Unchecked climate change will be too devastating to adapt to "The adaptation trap and the nonskeptical delayers (like Roger Pielke) — Part 1." Climate Progress. March 28, 2008: "The real question for humanity is whether we can avoid 800 to 1000 ppm or more. That is what the delayers and nonskeptical heretics simply don’t understand. At 800 to 1000 ppm, the world faces faces multiple catastrophes, including: Sea level rise of 80 feet to 250 feet at a rate of 6 inches a decade (or more). Desertification of one third the planet and drought over half the planet, plus the loss of all inland glaciers. More than 70% of all species going extinct, plus extreme ocean acidification."

• An ounce of mitigation is worth a pound of adaptation. "The adaptation trap and the nonskeptical delayers (like Roger Pielke) — Part 1." Climate Progress. March 28, 2008: "Heart surgery is adaptation — it’s waiting until the bad outcome has occurred (heart disease) and then trying desperately to save yourself with no guarantee of success. Lots of people die on the operating table or later from complications. Pielke apparently thinks the best that mitigators can do for people at risk of heart disease is research into methods of better surgery for dealing with it."

[]

No

• Many experts feel the world will not reach the target of keeping warming below 2 degrees. David Adam. "World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree". Guardian News. 14 April. 2009 - "Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. An average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century is more likely, they say, given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints.."

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Is mitigation more economic than adaptation?

[]

Yes

• The Stern Review argues that mitigation much less costly than the impacts of climate change. ". HM Treasury. 14 April. 2009 - "The Review estimates the annual costs of stabilisation at 500-550ppm CO2e to be around 1% of GDP by 2050 - a level that is significant but manageable."... Whereas "BAU (business as usual) climate change will reduce welfare by an amount equivalent to a reduction in consumption per head of between 5 and 20%".

[]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

[]

[]

[]

Pro/con sources

[]

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

See also

• Debate: Would unmitigated climate change be catastrophic?
• Debate: Is climate change chiefly human-caused?
• Debate: Is global warming a crisis?
• Debate: Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

External links and resources