Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Climate change mitigation vs adaptation

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

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.

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Feasibility: Is mitigation feasible?

[Add New]

Yes

  • 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."


[Add New]

No


[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Is mitigation more economic than adaptation?

[Add New]

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%".




[Add New]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here



[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Pro/con sources

[Add New]

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Add New]

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.