The blogosphere has been inundated with a deluge of posts about adaptation to climate change over the last week or so. Newspapers also seem to be awash with a torrent …(OK, enough of that).
1. Judith Curry reports on a joint US/UK meeting on adaptation held at her university, Georgia Tech, on “Robust Adaptation Decisions” and the science behind them. The first talk abstract says that adaptation is an increasingly significant policy response.
2. A social science paper about adaptation came out on Feb 14, “Communicating adaptation to climate change: the art and science of public engagement when climate change comes home”. I can only get the abstract, not the full text, but it seems to be a review paper. It says “It reveals much”, but the abstract certainly doesn’t.
3. John Gummer, aka Lord Deben writes in the Guardian that “The government has to act now on climate change”, but beyond the cliche of the title, the article is all about preparing and adapting, calling for more spending on flood and sea defences, and ending by arguing for a re-organization of government responsibility.
4. At the Klimazwiebel blog, Reiner Grundmann has an article “Hijacking the floods”, commenting critically on a doom-mongering article by Lord Stern, and the Gummer article linked above, saying that politicians are using the floods for point-scoring rather than seriously addressing the adaptation issue.
5. Leo Barasi says that this is what the next “fight” will be about (adaptation or mitigation). He still seems to think that we need to cut back our emissions to set an example, and still seems to suffer from the Communication Problem Delusion, saying that “people who want action on climate change need to find a new way of talking about it”.
6. Andrew Lilico in the Telegraph says “We have failed to prevent global warming, so we must adapt to it”. He argues that if one accepts that global warming is likely to be a serious problem, we should try to adapt to it rather than prevent it. He first points out that this is an economic question, not a scientific one. He discusses the failure of mitigation efforts over the last few decades, the pointlessness of the UK taking strong action in view of the rest of the world, the enormous costs and the unlikeliness of getting public agreement. He explains why adaptation is cheaper, more feasible and less risky.
7. Last and probably least, the chap formerly known as Wottsupwiththat is talking about adaptation and mitigation. As usual he has very little understanding of the issues, but at least he is aware of this (“I don’t fully understand what’s going on”).